The Late Development of the Bishop of Rome

Beggars All ^ | October 08, 2010 | Matthew Schultz

[RnMomof7]

Friday, October 08, 2010

The Late Development of the Bishop of Rome

John Bugay has posted on Hermas and the structure of the early Roman church before. I don't have anything original to add to that discussion.

However, I'd like to provide some corroboration by Roman Catholic scholars Raymond Brown and John Meier, whose book received both the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur (bold mine):

There is no doubt that it [The Shepherd of Hermas] was written at Rome (Vis. 1.1.1.; 2.1.1; 4.1.2); and the suggestion that Clement would send it abroad (Vis. 2.4.3) may mean that Hermas' revelations had church status in Rome...[characterizing the letter] Bernard ("Shepherd" 34-35) may be closer to the mark: "Thus I Clement, like Hermas, is a Christian work which leans heavily on late-Jewish and early Jewish-Christian tradition and apologetics, and this raises the question as to the composition of the Roman Church in the late first and early second centuries. There would appear to be grounds for thinking that the influence of the Jewish-Christian element in the Church remained strong into the second century." I would rephrase slightly, for I think of Rome as containing a dominant Jewish/Gentile Christianity that had strong loyalties to Jerusalem and the Jewish tradition. The author of Hermas may have been ethnically a pure Gentile, but he would be representative of that continuing strain of Christianity. The indication that there was still a church structure of presbyter-bishops and deacons⁴³³ indicates how conservative the Roman church was.¹

The footnote (#433) referenced above reads (bold mine):

433. See p. 163 above. All the references to presbyters and bishops are in the sections that some would judge chronologically early. However, if the men sitting on the bench in Man. 11.1 are presbyters, then the structure of presbyter-bishops lasted into the 140s. Telfer, Office 61, however, thinks it unquestionable that by the time Hermas was finished there was a single-bishop at Rome.²

Page 163 (and the previous page) reveals the following discussion (bold mine):

An older generation of Roman Catholic scholars assumed that the single-bishop practice was already in place in Rome in the 90s or earlier; and they opined that, as fourth pope (third from Peter), Clement was exercising the primacy of the bishop of Rome in giving directions to the church of Corinth. The failure of Clement to use his own name or speak personally should have called that theory into question from the start, were there not other decisive evidence against it. As the ecumenical book Peter in the New Testament (done by Roman Catholics and Protestants together) affirmed, the connection between a Petrine function in the first century and a fully developed Roman papacy required several centuries of development, so that it is anachronistic to think of the early Roman church leaders functioning as later popes (see footnote 275 above). Moreover, the Roman episcopal list shows confusion...All of this can be explained if we recognize that the threefold order of single-bishop, with subordinate presbyters and deacons, was not in place at Rome at the end of the first century; rather the twofold order of presbyter-bishops and deacons, attested a decade before in I Peter 5:1-5, was still operative. Indeed, the signal failure of Ignatius (ca. 110) to mention the single-bishop in his letter to the Romans (a very prominent theme in his other letters) and the usage of Hermas, which speaks of plural presbyters (Vis. 2.4.2) and bishops (Sim. 9.27.2), make it likely that the single-bishop structure did not come to Rome till ca. 140-150.³

Some observations:

1. This work received both the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur. It therefore carries more general weight than those whose only qualifications as Catholic apologists are a keyboard and an internet connection.

2. Brown and Meier are established Catholic scholars. They therefore carry more weight than otherwise unknown lay-Catholic apologists on the subject.

3. Brown and Meier state their position in direct contrast to previous generations of Roman Catholic scholars. Even on something as important as the nature of the church government of Rome, with particular application to the power and authority of the bishop(s) there, Catholic scholarship has not been consistent. This observation plays into a variety of problems with Roman Catholicism, some of which are fairly obvious.

4. There are lay-Catholic apologists who object to the term "Roman Catholic." This, however, is how Brown and Meier both refer to themselves and previous generations of scholars within their own denomination. If it's acceptable for Brown and Meier, and morally consistent with Catholicism proper (via the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur), it should be acceptable to lay-Catholic internet apologists.

____________

1. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1983, 2004), 203-204.

2. Ibid., 204.

3. Ibid., 162-163.

[dangus]

What does the fact that the Eastern Orthodox aren’t in communion with Rome have to do with the unity of the Catholic church? \

[dangus]

>> So far as i know, it was only ca. 200 that the term “priest” started to be applied to the bishop and only still later was it applied to the presbyter. <<

Ludicrous. The word, “priest” is simply the Anglicization of the word, “presbyter,” which, as you know, appears several times in the bible.

Note: the notion of a non-Christian priest became so abstract by renaissance England, that English translations of the bible used the word to also describe “hierus.” In Latin and Greek, “presbyter” and “hierus” are separate words.

[dangus]

I can't believe the name didn't spring to mind earlier. Raymond E Brown, though Catholic, was a lecturer at the PROTESTANT Union Theological Seminary who is also famous for denying the historicity of even the New Testament.

[daniel1212]

The phrase, "faith alone," is mentioned once in the Bible, and James 2:24 is it. Thus the Trinity must be disallowed, as that word never appears, while the fact that Scripture plainly declares font color="#0047ff">"to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works...," (Romans 4:5-6)

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast," (Ephesians 2:8-9)

then as regards what actually appropriates justification, in which the heart believes unto righteousness, (Rm. 10:10a) and with God "purifying their hearts by faith," (Acts 15:9) as "whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," even before baptism, (Acts 10:43,47) then "faith alone" is clearly a concept that is taught by Scripture.

For while Abraham had done good works before Gn. 15:6, yet when faced with something he simply could not do, Scripture plainly states that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (Romans 4:3)

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5)

Nor does Rm. 4 simply exclude works of the Law, as Eph. 2:8,9 and Titus 3:5 do not refer to simply these, but the use of the Law is because "if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)

But what is not taught is the strawman RCs rely upon, that the faith which is salvific is one which does not effect obedience, which is contrary to what Reformers taught, while it is RCs who most evidence they believe faith without works is alive.

This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature. I need not first command it and say: Look here, tree, bear apples. For if the tree is there and is good, the fruit will follow unbidden. If faith is present works must follow.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]

“We must therefore most certainly maintain that where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 246, footnote 99]

In those therefore in whom we cannot realize good works, we can immediately say and conclude: they heard of faith, but it did not sink into good soil. For if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341-342]

“This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]

James also invokes Gn. 15:6 in teaching that "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," (James 2:24) which would be a contradiction of both Moses and Paul. if James speaking of being justified in the same sense.

But while Paul is dealing with what actually appropriates justification, the merit of works or faith being counted as righteousness (yet not as merely being a white washed sinner, but one whose heart is purified by faith), James is dealing with the manner of faith that justifies, and which must be the kind of faith which effects obedience.

And which faith justifies one as being a saved soul, not a hearer only. For as Paul says, "not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified," (Romans 2:13) as it is the doers of the Law - who seek to fulfill the righteousness of the law - that manifest they have real justifying faith But it is not the merit of their works which appropriate justification, but faith is counted for righteousness, as man could never become good enough to be with God.

In contrast, under Roman soteriology, God justifieth the Godly, as one is "formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness,” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace) normally initially "infused" via regeneration effected by the act itself of sprinkling of water (ex opere operato), thus at that point the newly baptized is fit to enter Heaven. Thus Abraham must have become born again in Gn. 15:6.

However, due to failure to maintain this and as justification is based one one's own holiness, then under the Roman system of salvation, the RC (the EOs reject the purgatory of Rome) typically must endure postmortem "purifying torments" for an indeterminate time in purgatory until they atone for sins and once again become good enough to enter Heaven.

The Bible tells us to reject false human traditions like "faith which is alone" and "Scripture alone is to be used, and contains all there is to know," as per RC strawmen recently dealt with - again. Or that The word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

But not a multitude of RC things not seen in the NT church .

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:13)

You should "listen to the church," as Christ commands,.

And just where does Christ command always heeding the magisterium over Scripture, versus teaching that the authoritative magisterium can err, and point souls to Scripture as the supreme and sure standard for Truth?

because it is "the pillar and foundation of truth," as St. Paul tells us

And just where does this text (1Tim. 3:15) teach that ekklēsia zaō theos stulos kai hedraiōma ho/hē/to alētheia (church living God pillar and ground the truth) mean that the church is the supreme infallible standard for Truth, as perpetual magisterial infallibility is essential for the preservation of the Truth and faith? Which is what your admonishment infers.

Where do we see this as God's established means in Scripture, and where is this text infallibly defined as meaning what you have it mean?

And if it is not, then it is disputable, and relying on it is contrary to the Roman ethos, which censures relying on one's own interpretation in ascertaining Truth, versus looking to Rome apart from which we are told we cannot even know for sure what Scripture consists of, let alone mean.

[RnMomof7]

<<<< Ludicrous. The word, “priest” is simply the Anglicization of the word, “presbyter,” which, as you know, appears several times in the bible.>>> Nope just another Roman invention

The scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit ...He knows Greek and He chose the inspired words carefully. if there was to be a NT priesthood..the Holy Spirit would have said so .

The greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into “High Priest” and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.

The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .

The Greek have a two words for priest ...neither of which is used for the NT church

hiereus

1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites

a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,

2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ

and archiereus

1) chief priest, high priest

2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.

3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.

Neither role is given in scripture for the new church. The Jewish priesthood was a type of Christ

Christ fulfilled the role of Priest on the cross.. there is no more sacrifice for sin. The Role of priest is no longer needed

He is now our High Priest..

The scriptural roles given for the NT church of Jesus Christ are:

Elder

The word for elder is presbyteros in the greek...

1) elder, of age,

a) the elder of two people

b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior

1) forefathers

2) a term of rank or office

a) among the Jews

1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)

2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice

b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably

c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

Now the Holy Spirit knows the difference in the greek words.. there is no priesthood provided for in the NT church, it was about 300 AD before the first priesthood appeared..

Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states,
“Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions.”

“A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, ‘overseer’). In English this came to be translated as ‘bishop’ (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community’s Eucharistic assembly.”

“When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title ‘priest’ (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist.”

[daniel1212]

Ludicrous

Rather, disrespecting the distinction the Holy Spirit manifesty made is what is ludicrous.

The word, “priest” is simply the Anglicization of the word, “presbyter,” which, as you know, appears several times in the bible.

Which as justifying for using the same title for NT presbuteros as hiereus is based upon an etymological fallacy, as if etymologies are definitions of what a word originally meant, but which they are not. "Gay" clothing in James 2:3 does not refer to homosexual dress, while distinctive titles are important.

And as said, what occurred is that "presbuteros" in Greek (presbyter in Latin) was translated into English as "preost," and then "priest," but which also became the word used for "hierus" ("sacerdos" in Latin), losing the distinction the Holy Spirit made by never distinctively giving NT presbuteros the distinctive title hiereus.

In Latin and Greek, “presbyter” and “hierus” are separate words.

That is what i expressed, and thus failing to respect the distinction that the Holy Spirit made by NEVER giving the title hierus - which together with archiereus occurs 152 times - to NT presbuteros shows contempt for Him, but which change was a later development, made due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

[RnMomof7]

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. --James 2:24
The phrase, "faith alone," is mentioned once in the Bible, and James 2:24 is it.

You may want to reconsider mocking Luther

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).


To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

[daniel1212]

At least one priest has the gift of poetry, which illustrates one of the internal sectarian debates within Rome.

"The following dialogue is purportedly written by Bishop Williamson. I have no idea if that is true. But whatever of that, it is an informative exposition of the debate within the SSPX."

SL = SSPX soft-liner. HL = SSPX hard-liner.

SL Outside the Church is not where we should be!
HL Who left the Church? Vatican II! Not we!

SL Once in the Church, we could do so much more!
HL If we detested error, as before.

SL Why should we stop detesting error, pray?
HL Because we would be joining in their fray.

SL We need to live within the Church’s law.
HL Not if it is not serving God any more.

SL The Catholic Church is visible. We’re not there.
HL The Church is holy. Do we see that? Where?

SL But things have changed since the Archbishop’s day.
HL The modernists still hold exclusive sway.

SL What Rome now offers, he would have approved.
HL Never, once Benedict to Assisi moved!

SL The SSPX stands strong, need fear no fall.
HL Let all who stand fear falling, says St. Paul.

SL But our Superiors have grace of state.
HL Did leading churchmen never prevaricate?

SL Our leaders to the SSPX belong!
HL And does that mean they never can do wrong?

SL But, Pre-condition One, Rome freed the Mass.
HL And left in place the “bastard rite”, so crass.

SL Rome also lifted the ban on bishops four.
HL But did that make them more free than before?

SL Yet Benedict is calling for our aid.
HL To make Truth prosper, or to help it fade?

SL Of harming Truth, how can the Pope be accused?
HL His modernist mind is hopelessly confused.

SL Yet truly, Benedict wants us all back in.
HL As a modernist, yes, but modernism is a sin.

SL Then do you still believe that he is Pope?
HL Yes, but we must for his conversion hope.

SL What can you mean by, “As a modernist, yes”?
HL Our true Faith he can only harm, not bless.

SL Our welfare is his genuine concern.
HL Not our true welfare, if our true Faith he spurn.

SL A lack of supernatural spirit you show!
HL If woe I say there is, where there is woe?

SL Not everything in the Church is gloomy, dark!
HL Where do you see of true revival a spark?

SL A movement towards Tradition is under way!
HL While fully in control the modernists stay?

SL Then is the official Church still God’s own Church?
HL Yes, it’s the churchmen left us in the lurch.

SL But surely Pope and Rome have both meant well.
HL So? – “Good intentions pave the way to Hell.”

SL But evils worse that Vatican Two can be.
HL The Archbishop – remember? – called it World War III.

SL You’re harsh. Your attitude to schism will lead.
HL Better than undermine the entire creed!

SL Not all the Church authorities are bad.
HL The good ones have no power. It’s very sad.

SL Priests should not say, authority is untrue.
HL But bishops were the cause of Vatican II!

SL Still, Catholic instincts seek their Catholic home.
HL Today, for Catholics, that’s no longer Rome.

SL Then where is the Church? Just in Tradition? Where?
HL “One, holy, catholic, apostolic” – there.

SL You want to solve this problem overnight!
HL No, just that a start be made to set it right.

SL We trust in God. We trust in his Sacred Heart.
HL Bravo! But humans too must play their part.

SL That part is not for us just to complain.
HL Tradcats work hard, Tradition to maintain.

SL If we went in with Rome, we could turn back.
HL No. More and more we’d follow in Rome’s track.

SL Why stop the Romans making restitution?
HL Because they’re set upon our destitution.

SL Back in the mainstream Church we’d set to work!
HL Rather we’d lose our way in all their murk.

SL But we are strong, with bishops one and three.
HL Alas, the three with the one do not agree.

SL We’re firm in the Faith. Modernists are no threat!
HL We’d easily slide. You want to take a bet?

SL Strong in the Faith, we can afford to agree!
HL But that Faith says, from heretics to flee.

SL But Gott mit uns! We are the SSPX!
HL Not if we choose to ignore all prudent checks.

SL Were we approved, Romans would learn from us!
HL O Heavens, no! They’d throw us under the bus.

SL Were we approved, the earth of Rome could quake.
HL But not before to pieces we would shake.

SL Our leader has graces of state. We must obey.
HL Was Paul the Sixth given graces to betray?

SL Rome is now weak, meaning, we could stay strong.
HL For right, Rome’s feeble. Mighty it is for wrong.

SL So what’s the answer, if you’re always right?
How can the Church be rescued from its plight?

HL The Church belongs to God. In his good time
We’ll see his answer, stunning and sublime.

Till then we grieve, and thirst for right, and trust.
That which we cannot cure, endure we must.

From error and the erring stay away,
Even while for their immortal souls we pray.

And tell God’s truth, however few will hear –
As close as the nearest door, his help is near.

Posted by Fr John on May 11, 2012 in Culture, Current affairs, Liturgy | 23 comments www.boacp.com/tag/sspx/

[RobbyS]

Apostolic succession is pretty simple. After the Apostles died, the churches were ruled by a succession of bishops. In many places, including Rome, the succession can be traced back to the beginning. No more remarkable than the statement that the kings of France can be traced back to..... The question of authority is something else. Luther et al. had the need to justify their rejection of Roman authority and the authority of local bishops in union with Rome.

[RobbyS]

You assume that a definite chronology can be found in the New Testament, that any true development is one that is based on terms used in a canonical text. As to a hierarchy, one thing is sure that under the New Testament that it would not be based on blood-lines but on the relationship between the Apostles and the men who succeeded them as leaders of the Church. Assuming that “Hebrews” was address to Jewish priests who had join the Church, that is what is meant by speaking of the Christ as being a priest in the line of Melchizedek rather than a Levite. The hierarchy then is in linear succession to Jesus as ministers of his sacrifice. How we are to take this, then, depends on how we view the Eucharist and its celebration, which ceremonially replaces the ancient animal sacrifices.

[Faith Presses On]

These are personal attacks, not an addressing of the issues brought up by the article. This site isn’t a Catholic-run site, nor run by any other particular denomination. It doesn’t adopt the viewpoint of any particular Christian group or belief, and posting articles critical of any of them is not only allowable but part of what this site is actually for, discussion and sharing information.

There are also many other people being killed by Isis and other Muslims, including many Christians besides Catholics.

[daniel1212]

You assume that a definite chronology can be found in the New Testament, that any true development is one that is based on terms used in a canonical text.

Indeed. Considering the scope and the details the Holy Spirit provides even on lesser things, to never mention a successor to James, or manifest preparation for Peter whose manner of death was even prophesied, let alone churches not being told and reminded to look to Peter in Rome as their supreme infallible singular head, while clearly providing for ordinations of presbyteros and their requirements, is, among other absences, incongruous.

As to a hierarchy, one thing is sure that under the New Testament that it would not be based on blood-lines but on the relationship between the Apostles and the men who succeeded them as leaders of the Church.

Indeed, faith relationship, while Rome clearly fails of both the requirements to be an apostle (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1) and their credentials. (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12)

Instead, her claim to validity rests upon the premise of her perpetual magisterial veracity, in which tradition, history and Scripture can only mean what she decrees in any conflict.

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Thus the classic recourse of Manning,

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,”

Assuming that “Hebrews” was address to Jewish priests who had join the Church,

Which is an unwarranted assumption, as it simply reads like a general exhortation to Hebrew believers in general, including to obey their leaders.

that is what is meant by speaking of the Christ as being a priest in the line of Melchizedek rather than a Levite. The hierarchy then is in linear succession to Jesus as ministers of his sacrifice.

But in keeping with the other contrasts, one distinctive class of sacerdotal priests is not replaced with another, but Christ offered upon the perfect atonement for sin "once" "for ever," and sat down, with He alone being our priest. While the only priesthood is that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6), who are all called to sacrifice - the only Christians called to do so in Hebrews.

By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. (Hebrews 13:15)

And who have direct access in Christ into he holy of holies, (Heb. 10:19) with the only Heavenly intercessor being the perfect victorious Christ, who ever lives to do so. (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:25)

How we are to take this, then, depends on how we view the Eucharist and its celebration, which ceremonially replaces the ancient animal sacrifices

Which sacerdotal priesthood was a later development, and it does not replace the ancient animal sacrifices as a literal sacrifice. Despite for Caths it being the the source and summit of the Christian life," in which "the work of our redemption is accomplished," around which all else revolves, and engaging in this sacrificial offering being the primary function of NT pastors titled "hiereus"="priests," and being the essential to obtain spiritual and eternal life, instead in the life of the church (interpretive of the gospels) the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one epistle.

And in which (1Cor. 11:20-34 ) the Lord's supper is a commemoration of the Lord's death in which the church is to remember how the Lord's body was broken and His sinless blood poured out for them as a body. (Acts 20:28) And thus they declare/proclaim His death for the body of Christ by manifesting that caring love for each other as being part of that blood-bought body in sharing food during that actual communal meal, the "feast of charity."

And thus by going ahead and eating while others had none, shaming them that had not and were hungry, then the apostle said they were not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, but their own. Thus they were not to come to fill their belly, but to effectually recognize each other as being part of that body for whom Christ died, which is the body was the focus here, and in the next chapters.

And which view is the only one that is consistent with with the rest of Scripture, as recently once again shown briefly.

[redleghunter]

Please read your own post. That’s the point.

And to clarify according to the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics are out of communion with them.

[RobbyS]

You assume that a definite chronology can be found in the New Testament, that any true development is one that is based on terms used in a canonical text. Indeed. Considering the scope and the details the Holy Spirit provides even on lesser things, to never mention a successor to James, or manifest preparation for Peter whose manner of death was even prophesied, let alone churches not being told and reminded to look to Peter in Rome as their supreme infallible singular head, while clearly providing for ordinations of presbyters and their requirements, is, among other absences, incongruous. The Holy Spirit, which is to say the word of God as discerned by.revealed to the author of the text, omits to tell us much that we might expect to read and many things that mean nothing to us. That is because these letters were not addressed to us but to certain living and breathing persons who were known and loved by him, concerning matters whose significance often escapes us. He was indeed, like the prophets of all addressing us as well, and our descendents without knowing it. But he did speak as a man among other men and women at a point of time in history. So we must accept that there is much we don’t “get”. As to a hierarchy, one thing is sure that under the New Testament that it would not be based on blood-lines but on the relationship between the Apostles and the men who succeeded them as leaders of the Church. Indeed, faith relationship, while Rome clearly fails of both the requirements to be an apostle (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1) and their credentials. (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12) Instead, her claim to validity rests upon the premise of her perpetual magisterial veracity, in which tradition, history and Scripture can only mean what she decrees in any conflict. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Thus the classic recourse of Manning, It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” “Rome,” which is to say the papacy, rests its authority on Peter’s commission’s in Matthew and In John. The way that authority has been exercised was a not fixed and has taken different shapes over the centuries. Peter, of course, was no Roman Patriarch but an Apostle of Christ. The juridical trappings, the rest, are historical accidents, but much the same can be said about the manner in which the Law of Moses was executed over the centuries. The life of the Church like the life of the Jewish people has been shaped by concrete decisions, including many mistakes. What endures are the promises. God will not break his covenant with the Jews, so in that respect that people are infallible and the Torah as an everlasting statement of God’s will. We believe that in Christ that covenant met its fulfillment, that in the Church he continues his pact not only with them but in the other nations as well. He promises that the Church not fail despite all appearances, that we shall endure to the Last Days. The papacy is an instrument in his hands and that “Rome” has endured, even as the other patriarches have been so diminished, ought to be considered as a sign that there ought to be a place where the oneness of he Church is displayed. Assuming that “Hebrews” was address to Jewish priests who had join the Church, Which is an unwarranted assumption, as it simply reads like a general exhortation to Hebrew believers in general, including to obey their leaders. Again, it cabe be read that way only because we don’t know for sure who its audience was, but some scholars surmise it was the priests given that speaks of Christ as priest. that is what is meant by speaking of the Christ as being a priest in the line of Melchizedek rather than a Levite. The hierarchy then is in linear succession to Jesus as ministers of his sacrifice. But in keeping with the other contrasts, one distinctive class of sacerdotal priests is not replaced with another, but Christ offered upon the perfect atonement for sin "once" "for ever," and sat down, with He alone being our priest. While the only priesthood is that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6), who are all called to sacrifice - the only Christians called to do so in Hebrews. By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. (Hebrews 13:15) And who have direct access in Christ into he holy of holies, (Heb. 10:19) with the only Heavenly intercessor being the perfect victorious Christ, who ever lives to do so. (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:25) But Christ is our high priest forever. That means that his Sacrifice is always “lit” for our behalf before the Father. How we are to take this, then, depends on how we view the Eucharist and its celebration, which ceremonially replaces the ancient animal sacrifices Which sacerdotal priesthood was a later development, and it does not replace the ancient animal sacrifices as a literal sacrifice. Despite for Caths it being the the source and summit of the Christian life,” in which "the work of our redemption is accomplished," around which all else revolves, and engaging in this sacrificial offering being the primary function of NT pastors titled "hiereus"="priests," and being the essential to obtain spiritual and eternal life, instead in the life of the church (interpretive of the gospels) the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one epistle. I said ceremonially it replaces the animal sacrifices. And that is to remind us that the sacrifices offered in the Temple, while not efficacious, were pleasing to God, and a measure of the Jews faithfulness to their Lord God. The “Breaking of the Bread” was an allusion to the Eucharist. The lack of any order of service in the Bible makes it all he most impressive to me that the formula of institution was repeated in the three synoptic gospel and more liturgically by Paul. And in which (1Cor. 11:20-34 ) the Lord's supper is a commemoration of the Lord's death in which the church is to remember how the Lord's body was broken and His sinless blood poured out for them as a body. (Acts 20:28) And thus they declare/proclaim His death for the body of Christ by manifesting that caring love for each other as being part of that blood-bought body in sharing food during that actual communal meal, the "feast of charity." And thus by going ahead and eating while others had none, shaming them that had not and were hungry, then the apostle said they were not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, but their own. Thus they were not to come to fill their belly, but to effectually recognize each other as being part of that body for whom Christ died, which is the body was the focus here, and in the next chapters. And which view is the only one that is consistent with with the rest of Scripture, as recently once again shown briefly. You pass over what comes before, which is an exhortation not to eat the food at pagan sacrifices. So his remarks about the Lord’s Supper are freighted by this reference to the eating of the flesh of sacrificed animals.

[daniel1212]

The Holy Spirit, which is to say the word of God as discerned by.revealed to the author of the text, omits to tell us much that we might expect to read and many things that mean nothing to us.

That is all to obvious, as Rome can decree something as being binding Truth even if it is not in Scripture, and contrary to what is written, as she is the autocratic judge of that.

Thus despite the Assumption of Mary being absent from Scripture, nor foretold, and the crowning of saints only being at His return, and lacking valid early testimony of that event , Rome claims to "remember" what was "forgotten" and dam those who do not believe it! But Rome can "remember" what is needed when lacking actual warrant for from where it should be found.

Ratzinger writes (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

But,

subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [meaning the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

Indeed lack of Scriptural evidence mean nothing to RCs, as the weight of Scriptural substantiation it not the basis for the veracity of her teaching, while doctrinally Scripture is abused as a servant compelled to support Roman traditions, extrapolating when is needed but is not there. As often shown here.

That is because these letters were not addressed to us but to certain living and breathing persons who were known and loved by him, concerning matters whose significance often escapes us. He was indeed, like the prophets of all addressing us as well, and our descendents without knowing it. But he did speak as a man among other men and women at a point of time in history. So we must accept that there is much we don’t “get”.

That is quite creative, but the reality is that Scripture can show a universal address, (Jn. 20:31; Rv. 22:18) while the fact that a record of early church history was written to a man, or that letters were written to churches etc, does not mean that somehow the many traditions that are not in Scripture were somehow simply invisible to us.

The reason there was only one manifest successor to an apostle, and none for the martyred James or any manifest preparations for Peter etc., or such things as the absence of even one prayer addressed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, or in instructions on who to address prayer to Heaven to, or even one exhortation to the churches to submit to Peter as their singular supreme head, etc, while telling us of the one successor, and which was by the non-political methods of casting lots, and over 200 prayers in all of Scripture, and who to address them to, and of the street-level leadership role of Peter as one of the pillars, as well as his public rebuke, is not because Acts was written to an individual or the letters to individual churches, and so somehow we just don’t “get it.” The Holy Spirit is not negligent as Cath doctrine implicitly makes Him.

Esp. when the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

“Rome,” which is to say the papacy, rests its authority on Peter’s commission’s in Matthew and In John.

Rather, she invokes this but which is interpretive as referring to Peter being the rock upon which the church is built, and lacks the often “claimed “unanimous consent” of the fathers .

And thus as with other texts out of which she egregiously extrapolates her perpetuate Petrine papacy and magisterial infallibility, the veracity of her interpretation rests upon the premise of her perpetual magisterial infallibility, and reasons that there can be no contradiction since they both have the same source-author.

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. .(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)

And even history only means what she says in any conflict, as the aforementioned recourse of Manning expressed,

The way that authority has been exercised was a not fixed and has taken different shapes over the centuries.

Which "different shape" is a most manifest deformation which cannot be justified. Even the EOs are partly right in rejecting "the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory," etc.

The life of the Church like the life of the Jewish people has been shaped by concrete decisions, including many mistakes. What endures are the promises. God will not break his covenant with the Jews, so in that respect that people are infallible and the Torah as an everlasting statement of God’s will....He promises that the Church not fail despite all appearances, that we shall endure to the Last Days.

Your parallel applies to the whole body of Christ but fails under the Roman model, as under the latter a perpetual infallible magisterium is essential to even know what Scripture consists of, and for preservation and assurance of Truth. However, the church began with fallible souls having assuredly discerned both men and writings as being of God.

And with God having provided and preserved Truth with a perpetual infallible magisterium, sometimes by raising up men from without the mag. in order to reprove it. And thus the church began and thus faith has been preserved.

The papacy is an instrument in his hands and that “Rome” has endured, even as the other patriarches have been so diminished, ought to be considered as a sign that there ought to be a place where the oneness of he Church is displayed.

Rather, the devil himself has endured, as has ancient religions, thus by your logic they also must be considered true, but the idea of a perpetually infallible papacy is of the devil, which and whom God allows as a test as to who will follow Him versus them.

Meanwhile "unbroken succession" includes an absence of up to 3 years with no pope, plus competing popes, and confusion and failure to lead.

Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, Cardinal Ratzinger observed,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)

Again, it cabe be read that way only because we don’t know for sure who its audience was, but some scholars surmise it was the priests given that speaks of Christ as priest.

"Some scholars indeed." Which is wishful thinking. In any case, unless a text is officially defined then it has no authoritative meaning even for RCs, but is just private interpretation which they censure us for.

But Christ is our high priest forever. That means that his Sacrifice is always “lit” for our behalf before the Father.

Actually, rather than simply being a memorial, Rome teaches that in "that the sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of the cross...a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious," that in the Mass "no less than on Calvary, Jesus really offers his life to his heavenly Father," "only the manner of offering is different," "in an unbloody way [Christ] offers himself a most acceptable Victim to the eternal Father, as he did upon the Cross," as the priest "places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man."

Which is consumed to obtain spiritual life,. Which is all heretical endocannibalism.

The “Breaking of the Bread” was an allusion to the Eucharist.

But never as transubstantiation.

The lack of any order of service in the Bible makes it all he most impressive to me that the formula of institution was repeated in the three synoptic gospel and more liturgically by Paul.

But which is simply breaking and eating bread and drinking wine which corresponds to Christ being broken and poured out, (Ps. 22:14; 31:12; 38:8) which manner of figurative language the apostles were all familiar with, even as the "leaven of the Pharisees," though they could be slow on the uptake.

You pass over what comes before, which is an exhortation not to eat the food at pagan sacrifices. So his remarks about the Lord’s Supper are freighted by this reference to the eating of the flesh of sacrificed animals.

Indeed, which actually is clearly contrary to the idea of transubstantiation. For 1Cor. 10 actually teaches what i said, that the "body of Christ" as the church is the focus, and that they show union with Christ by their communal sharing in that meal:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. (1 Corinthians 10:16-17)

Believers show fellowship with Christ in His death for the body by their communal sharing in that meal which is done in remembrance of Him, and which is to declare, proclaim it.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26)

Moving on in 1Cor. 10.

But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20,21)

And how would they have fellowship with devils? Not by consuming the transsubstantiated flesh of devils, but by taking part in a feast done in dedication to demons. For they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar, showing union with the object of this feast and each other, but not because the food has been transsubstantiated into that of the entity it is offered to.

Nor is the Lord's supper a sacrifice for sin, any more than praise is.

Thus while one may buy and eat food which is offered in sacrificed to idols, if not offending a brother with scruples about it, as i could eat a RC host, they were not to take part in religious feasts.

[RobbyS]

If, as you agree, the Holy Spirit, continues to guide the Church, the question is HOW? The Lord did not choose to send down the Gospel in the way he did the Torah, written by his hand on the tablets of the law. The only Scriptures that the Apostles and disciples had in hand when they began their mission were the same as the Rabbis had access to. Indeed, the New Testament is, as much anything else, an interpretation, interpretations, really of those scriptures in the light of the career of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the surety we have of the inspiration of the canon, is pretty much the same as that of the Jewish canon, which is by tradition. The Jews never at any time listed true books of the Canon, nor did the Church. Your assumption seems to be that we should look at the Scriptures pretty much as some schools of Islam look at their, that the Koran alone is divine.

[roamer_1]

You cannot disprove apostolic succession.

That is wrong-headed. Pedigree does not have to be disproved, but rather, it is incumbent upon the claimant to prove descent. And provenance of any kind is wholly useless unless perfect, and beyond all reproach.

[CynicalBear]

>>In many places, including Rome, the succession can be traced back to the beginning.<<

No it can't. Show any historical documented proof that Linus was even as much as a Bishop in Rome.

[CynicalBear]

Please show where the prohibition against eating blood was rescinded. If you can’t Jesus and the apostles were sinning by eating blood.

[daniel1212]

If, as you agree, the Holy Spirit, continues to guide the Church, the question is HOW?

Indeed, which is issue RCs must struggle with, for did the Lord preserved Truth and faith via a perpetual infallible magisterial office, or by a fallible yet authoritative magisterial office, while raising up men from without to reprove it, even if rejected by them? And thus the church began, and faith has been preserved. Thanks be to God.

The Lord did not choose to send down the Gospel in the way he did the Torah, written by his hand on the tablets of the law.

But the gospel depended upon OT Scriptural substantiation. For as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced

The only Scriptures that the Apostles and disciples had in hand when they began their mission were the same as the Rabbis had access to.

Indeed, which was essential for the veracity of the claims of the NT church, and thus its establishment. Unlike the claims of Rome.

Indeed, the New Testament is, as much anything else, an interpretation, interpretations, really of those scriptures in the light of the career of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Indeed, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)" (Romans 1:1-2) and the writing of which the OT provided for, as it testifies to writings of God being recognized and established as being so, and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

Furthermore, the surety we have of the inspiration of the canon, is pretty much the same as that of the Jewish canon, which is by tradition.

That is superficial: like the establishment of men of God, writings of God were essentially established as being so due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation. Without that they not would have been reverenced, while much of Scripture and most of the NT first existed in written form. (And Rome's decrees on tradition are not wholly inspired of God as Scripture is.)

The Jews never at any time listed true books of the Canon, nor did the [NT] Church.

It seems they had no real need to.

. Your assumption seems to be that we should look at the Scriptures pretty much as some schools of Islam look at their, that the Koran alone is divine.

Islam also believes in worship, but the devil uses God's principles while perverting His precepts. The error of Islam is not that of the principal of a supreme written standard, but that they have the wrong one.

And even a RC must admit Scripture is the only objective transcendent body of Truth of a comprehensive nature that is wholly inspired of God. Thus the devil invoked it in tempting the Lord, who defeated him by it, and substantiated His claims by it, and opened up the minds of the disciples to it, not tradition. (Mt. 4; Lk. 24:27,44)