That's not what I said. I said that you do not have infallible Scripture in your hands. The Early Church did. That separates them from your bunch. The early Nicene fathers never taught that the interpretation was infallible through Church teachings. They knew what was inspired and what wasn't. Jerome, Chrysostom and others must be turning over in their crypts.
Really? The Church has always taught that.
I don't have to be a Pope to read what the early church fathers wrote on the inspiration of scripture and declared at council after council. The Church plainly no longer follows the teachings of the fathers. This is a case in point. It is disingenuous for Catholics to pretend that they do.
Interesting statement. Which Councils are you referring to?
They apparently had it as late as the 4th century. Did the Church lose the scriptures?
Interesting statement. Which Councils are you referring to?
Well, as much as I'm not impressed with the Council of Trent, we really don't have to go back too far to see that the Catholic Church viewed the scriptures as the authentic works.
DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.