Like always, Christians MUST appeal to Scripture - and so did the early fathers of the church - as it stands alone as the OBJECTIVE and inerrant, divinely-inspired word of God. If THAT isn't authoritative, what else is better?
Catholics are constantly appealing to Scripture and no one in the Catholic Church questions its authority. But to hold to the authority of Scripture is not the same as having it as the sole authority. From Scripture itself we know that Jesus Christ established the Church with authority and sent the Holy Spirit teach and guard it. To reject this is to reject Scripture itself.
Additionally, despite the claims of sola Scriptura, Protestants in fact do not actually act this way. Instead they bring some basic theological assumptions to the interpretation of Scripture which they inherited from the Reformers. Thus they are just as wedded to their own tradition as are Catholics.
God's word is clear on the main doctrines that determine authentic Christianity.
If this is so then why do Protestants disagree among themselves and why do they teach doctrines that were unheard of in the early church and for the next 1500 years?
It [Scripture] means what it says and hiding behind a "that's your own private interpretation of Scripture" is a ruse.
What Scripture says is not the same as what you says it says, this is only your private opinion on the matter. I, and many Catholics, find the competing Protestant interpretations of Scripture wanting. As well as having the authority of God's church behind them, the Catholic interpretation of Scripture just makes more sense.
Amazing that you try to hang YOUR albatross around OUR neck!
OK. If you want to go there, what about the infallibility of the pope and the assumption of Mary?
Were those doctrines heard of in the early church?
Were they not established as doctrine in Vatican 1 and 2?
And isn't a faithful Catholic now required to believe in the immaculate conception, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and her assumption?
Does the magisterium ever disagree with anything?
Or are they always unanimous?
The same kind of disagreements that you castigated all "Protestants" for, you acknowledge exist in your church but somehow that still proves total unity that enables you to proclaim the superiority of the Roman Catholic church? I already acknowledged that there ARE major tenets of the Christian faith that are nonnegotiable - those that are clearly laid out IN Scripture which is the work of holy men of God carried along by the Holy Spirit to write what they did. They WERE the first leaders of the body of Christ. I hardly think they mistakenly omitted anything that was necessary for the salvation of souls.
The RCC did change and create new doctrines different from those held at the start which were given in Scripture. It was the FIRST guidebook and rule of faith and this was acknowledged repeatedly by most of the men called Early Church Fathers. Just reading their writings disputing the heresies of their day shows the continuous and consistent use of God's word to do so. To claim that all Catholics "constantly" appeal to Scripture and no one questions its authority ignores the existence of RCC practices which hold the authority of Scripture as EQUAL to tradition and the decisions of the Popes and magesterium. Some doctrines find NO basis in Scripture yet belief in them is mandated anyway. Maybe at one time Scripture was seen as the PRIME authority, but that was not the case during the Reformation and it isn't today.
Additionally, despite the claims of sola Scriptura, Protestants in fact do not actually act this way. Instead they bring some basic theological assumptions to the interpretation of Scripture which they inherited from the Reformers. Thus they are just as wedded to their own tradition as are Catholics.
There isn't anything wrong, per se, in having traditions - but they MUST be ones that have a Scriptural basis if they are to be enforced upon the whole church or proclaimed as essential for salvation. That really is the proper definition of sola Scriptura and at one time even the Roman Catholic church believed it and defended it. There are, like I said, basic doctrines that God has clearly told us in His word and we MUST believe them if we expect to be followers of Christ and be saved. For example, If some church decides nobody can be saved who doesn't give all their money and possessions to it and live as a commune under a central guru, then we can know they have no Scriptural basis for that and can label them as a cult and warn seekers away. If a Protestant church changes its statement of faith from belief in Jesus Christ as God in the flesh to Jesus was an angel God exalted to Savior, we can know the same way that they are a false religion. Sure, anyone can make up any religion they want - and there ARE millions of them out there, but it doesn't mean they are teaching the truth and are not being led by a false prophet.
Protestants, just like Catholics and Orthodox ALL have some central, agreed upon tenets that have always, by everyone and everywhere been held. These are the traditions - based upon Scriptural warrant - that differentiate Christianity from any other religion out there (even some who claim they are Christian). Individuals within each faith tradition must individually accept and believe what God has set forth as the faith. The Jewish people knew what they were because they had the word of God as their guide. Christians followed that same example and God did not fail to provide the same to us after Christ came to earth. What makes someone a Christian today is no different than it was at the start.
What Scripture says is not the same as what you says it says, this is only your private opinion on the matter. I, and many Catholics, find the competing Protestant interpretations of Scripture wanting. As well as having the authority of God's church behind them, the Catholic interpretation of Scripture just makes more sense.
Scripture says what it says. It is plain to understand by design. You prove Scripture BY Scripture. There really is no big mystery on Biblical interpretation. Words in context mean what they say. God expects us to obey, not fight over who is right or wrong about what He tells us. You cling to the authority of "God's church" and, believe it or not, I do too. I just disagree with you on who you say IS God's church. I don't believe it is a central organization based out of Rome, headed by one man who claims to be divinely gifted with infallibility that was passed down to him by the guy before him and so on.
Apostolic authority is one of MESSAGE, not position. And the message is proved by God's sacred and inspired word - the Bible. One of the ways anyone knew someone was passing on the teachings (that's what tradition is) was by how what they said was what has always been believed and what has always been believed is found IN Scripture. It IS our rule of faith - STILL.
Would that be the list of infallible ones? Or is that decrees that the Church has ordained that MUST be believed?
And just where does on get that list?
Does that include all the stuff about Mary being born sinless, perpetually virgin, and bodily assumed?
Does one must believe that the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra?
Does that mean that one must believe that the priest can and does forgive their sins and that without that they are not forgiven? That God Himself cannot override the priest and forgive sins Himself?
Does one HAVE to believe that salvation, life eternal, comes through eating the eucharist and that if one doesn't partake of the eucharist, one does not go to heaven?
Please provide a list of doctrines that a Catholic MUST believe to remain a Catholic in good standing.