We trust the church in such matters only insofar as they agree with Scripture. Such doctrines are in fact demonstrable and supportable from Scripture and plain reason.
As you may know, these and many other beliefs were hammered out over many years by bishops and other men poring over Sacred Scriptures AND the Apostolic Tradition passed down (read this as "correct interpretation of Scriptures). Why is it that you decide that the Church is right on such matters as the contents of Scriptures (which point to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth) and many doctrines defined many years later, but NOT on such matters as Mary's virginity?
What the Creeds and Councils primarily did was formally and clearly define and defend what was already accepted as orthodoxy. The supposed inherent infallibility of the church had nothing to do with determining for instance which books were and were not Scripture. The church formally recognized as Scripture those which were reasonably and commonly understood as such.
If we believe that the Church infallibly tells us the contents of the Word of God, then we should believe that the Church ALSO infallibly tells us an explanation of the Word of God.
And there we have already met a point of divergence between us, because I do not believe that the Church "infallibly tells us the contents of the Word of God." Does that mean that I deny God's immutable will in ensuring that only His true Word was canonized? No. I simply do not look to the infallibility of the Church as the source of trustworthiness.
This is where I am lost regarding the Protestant mindset. It is a contradictory stance. Either determine the Scriptures for yourself and invent any sort of idea you want, or believe that God has revealed Himself through ONE Body. I don't see how you can have it both ways except by special pleading.
There is an glaring logical flaw in your reasoning here though, because the ultimate source appealed to for the very notion of God revealing Himself infallibly through one body is Scripture.
To what authority to you appeal in your claim of the Catholic Church as the one true infallible body of Christ? If you appeal ultimately to Scripture, then you must necessarily recognize that you are simply promoting your interpretation of Scripture over and against another. If you appeal to something other than Scripture, then what is it that supercede's the Word of God in terms of revelation? The Church? That is a self-reinforcing argument. Christ? What direct, lasting and objectively receivable Word do we have from Him apart from Scripture?
I am in the same position as Luther on this issue. If you can convince me from Scripture and plain reason that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true infallible body of Christ on Earth, then I will believe it.
No, we trust in the Church PERIOD, since IT is the Body of Christ, not the Scriptures! The Scriptures themselves are only trustworthy in the sense that we trust the community they come from. Otherwise, how do you know that you have the "correct" Word of God? How do you KNOW that the Gnostic Scriptures are not REALLY from God? You know because you have been taught by the Church and the witness of others who vouch for it.
Now, naturally we are to judge whether something is true or not. Apostolic Tradition and Scripture cannot contradict. But the virginity of Mary is NOT contradicted by Scriptures. It is just not related in Scriptures because it was not a pressing issue when Paul was writing to the various communities spread throughout the Mediterranean.
What the Creeds and Councils primarily did was formally and clearly define and defend what was already accepted as orthodoxy. The supposed inherent infallibility of the church had nothing to do with determining for instance which books were and were not Scripture. The church formally recognized as Scripture those which were reasonably and commonly understood as such.
So what "ruler" did they use to judge whether the Gospel of Thomas was not from God? Apostolic Tradition. They were TAUGHT a particular way of reading the Scriptures and had already worshiped God in a particular way. Thus, when they came together to define what was Scriptures, they already had an existing paradigm that was taught by both oral and written manner.
I simply do not look to the infallibility of the Church as the source of trustworthiness.
Oh. so you judge for yourself what is Scriptures. And when if someone comes along and disagrees with you? Which one is full of it and which one is full of the "Spirit"?
There is an glaring logical flaw in your reasoning here though, because the ultimate source appealed to for the very notion of God revealing Himself infallibly through one body is Scripture.
Where exactly in this Scripture does Scripture make that claim? Protestants have invented this as if it is an axiom, but I have yet to find this written down. Thus, your logic is self-defeating. You PRESUME that this is who God reveals Himself - solely through a book. Yet, the Scriptures themselves tell us to hold onto the teachings given, BOTH ORALLY and WRITTEN. Why do you go against THAT teaching? Where does the Scripture abrogate that teaching? If anything, YOU are going AGAINST Scriptures by demanding everything must be written in the Bible before we believe something.
Until you can give me one verse from the entire Bible that says we are to ignore all future apostolic teachings because they are in the already compiled bible, I will go along with you. Otherwise, you need to analyze the logic of your own position.
Regards