I don't know. Why did God allow man to sin? Why did so many Jews reject Christ? All I can say is that God does things that do not meet "man's" expectations - for example, the "folly of the cross"... I believe God left a Church that was alive, active, and able to meet the needs of the community of TODAY. The Bible has a lot of things in it if taken literally, make no sense for us today. It is subject to faulty interpretation. It can be twisted out of context. Without the Church, the Bible isn't much help. I think God would foresee that, and left the Church, our spiritual mother, to help us along our journey of faith. We need a community of believers to help us. I do not believe a man can be isolated with his bible and expect to be a good Christian. The Church gives us proper perspective for the problems we face today.
But I have to remember again that you believe that the Bible is inerrant based on the same authority that you believe that extra-scriptural Tradition is inerrant. If a committee votes that the Bible is inerrant, and another committee votes that the writings of a particular Saint are also inerrant, then why wouldn't that Saint be on a par with the Apostles?
No, that won't happen. The Apostles were singularly blessed as being infallible. Both their oral and written teachings were directly from God. While God certainly can inspire saints to give teachings, the Church does not bind other people to heed such private revelation. We bind ourselves to the public revelations of the Apostles, in matters of faith and morals. While the Church might say that the writings of St. Francis de Sales are edifying and highly suggest us to read them and meditate on them, the Church would not equate his writings to Scriptures.
Really? So let me get this straight. Everyone believed in an infant baptism, but further explanation was needed as to whether Jesus ever said anyone should get baptized? (What was the additional info?) And, everyone believed in a sinless Mary, but further explanation was needed as to whether she was the mother of Jesus? And finally, everyone knew that Jesus went down into hell, but further explanation was needed that He even died on the cross? Seems like the cart is before the horse in all these cases. Odd ducks, these early Christians.
Quack! These are all different examples... On infant baptism, I would say that in the beginning, it wasn't much of an issue. The Church was still growing and were looking for ADULT converts to continue the faith. Once settling in, once they saw that Christ wasn't about to come again in glory in the next week, I think they saw that it was time to allow or expand the practice (to loosen, as their authority was given to do) to include infants. Paul teaches the parallelism to circumcision in Colossians, one of his later writings. I would think in the 60's, 30 years after the Passion, the Church realized that it was time to look to the long haul. The Church Fathers also witness to the "ancient practice of infant baptism". There is thus historical evidence of the practice. There really is no reason to doubt that this was practiced by the first generation of Christians - the Bible never states that infants CANNOT be baptised - so we look to other sources. I think the issue you have is theologically based.
On Mary being sinless, this would likely be more of a "feeling" based on the total teachings given. Being that the Apostles were around her for the entire three years of Jesus' ministry, she was in the Upper Room during Pentacost, was alive and under John's care for a number of years, I would say theologically AND historically, they had the evidence available to them to make the statement. I think the Church first writes about it in 150 AD - the comparision of Mary as being the New Eve. The teaching was widely accepted - as if the people had a "sense" of its truth. In this case, we look to the Holy Spirit in His role of guiding the faithful to deeper realization of God's Revelation. If Christ is the Body of the Church, the Spirit is the Soul of the Church - the will and the intellect. We believe that the entire Church together has a correct sense on such development of theology.
As to Jesus going to "Hades", this reflects the idea the Christ redeemed ALL men, not just in space, but in time. Thus, His work is retroactive in time, being that He is ALSO a timeless Person. His work transcends time. Thus, those, in time, who were righteous in the Old Testament, were brought out of "Hades" and into heaven. Again, this reflects the faith of the Church based on the idea of Whom Christ was and His mission.
As you know, I believe that the scripture proves itself to be infallibly correct.
It proves itself? That is a huge circular argument! We have been TOLD that the Bible is the Word of God. We either believe this or not. But it is not obvious on its own merits. I do not consider it impossible to write "Scripture" - as the Gnostics did - and Paul was quite concerned about this possibility in several of his epistles. We rely on the Church's mind to tell us that we have legitimate Scriptures and nothing more.
No, if you said "this is God's word ...", I would ask you to show me where it says that in God's word, the Bible. If you couldn't, then I would know that it's baloney. :)
Again, you start with the argument and presumption that the Bible IS the Word of God as if by magic. You are begging the question...
There is a big difference. The only things written from God are the 66 books of the Bible.
I can't believe that God chose "66" as the number for His perfect written work to mankind! Don't you see the symbolic meaning of that? Let's say 73 books, perfection given by the Trinity...
I don't think very much. The Commandment itself notes that it is a symbolic remembrance, which is, of course, good. But I don't think God is too hung up on whether the actual day is a Saturday or a Sunday, or a Wednesday
AH! So YOU DO pick and choose what YOU think is important! Apparently, you think "FK's bible interpretation" = the "Word of God". Jesus' attitude was about placing man above the sabbath - thus, we can bend the sabbath "rules" to take care of a person in need, or walk a mile to feed someone. This doesn't mean we pick and choose what day to give to God!
Regards
Yes, I believe that the Apostles were in a class by themselves.
The Church was still growing and were looking for ADULT converts to continue the faith. Once settling in, once they saw that Christ wasn't about to come again in glory in the next week, I think they saw that it was time to allow or expand the practice (to loosen, as their authority was given to do) to include infants.
But the Apostles could not have taught that it was proper to baptize an adult who was a non-believer. Surely, they understood that infants were also "non-believers" just in a definitional sense. So, it doesn't seem to me that they would be just expanding a practice to include more people, they had to change the meaning of it, didn't they?
On Mary being sinless, this would likely be more of a "feeling" based on the total teachings given. Being that the Apostles were around her for the entire three years of Jesus' ministry, she was in the Upper Room during Pentecost, was alive and under John's care for a number of years, I would say theologically AND historically, they had the evidence available to them to make the statement.
Now, now, you know as well as I that sin is also in thought, which none of the Apostles could have known as regards Mary. One example of Mary's sin that I have heard of was at the wedding in Cana. Frankly, I'd be willing to let that one slide. Objectively, I honestly don't see enough evidence. However, and since I'm thinking of it at this moment, :) is it a sin to disbelieve when one has no excuse? If it is, then how does Mary get out of the scene when she went to the tomb to anoint the body? She didn't bring the spices because she expected a risen Lord, EXACTLY when He said He would rise. The angel's question confirms this.
AH! So YOU DO pick and choose what YOU think is important! Apparently, you think "FK's bible interpretation" = the "Word of God". Jesus' attitude was about placing man above the sabbath - thus, we can bend the sabbath "rules" to take care of a person in need, or walk a mile to feed someone. ... -- This doesn't mean we pick and choose what day to give to God!
No, Jesus demonstrated that He is a Christ of common sense, especially on this issue. The day of Sunday was selected to legitimately honor Him. By the words of Christ Himself:
Mark 2:27 : Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
May I assume that you ignore this verse in defending your position that the only legitimate Sabbath is on a Saturday? (I assume that because you said that we don't pick and choose which day to worship God.) I didn't even know that Catholics don't worship on Sundays!