Amazing then how it was “once delivered to all” and yet the “good churches” (and not the “bad ones”) had what they considered to be inspired scripture which what was allowed in the scriptures in Rome, reflected by the Muratorian Fragment for c. 180 A.D. Rome (and most likely even before that in Rome) and it included the Revelation of Peter.
This work was widely read is a plethora of “good churches: throughout the Roman Empire. I guess they considered this book to also be “:once delivered unto the saints.” Yeah, no way they could have been in error. I mean, it’s the church I Rome, the “Holy See” of all places. In Rome of all places, men speaking and reading twisted things.
No private interpretation...
We can see a lot of that in the early second century church. Most churches - the “good ones” - had the Gospel of Peter as being considered “canonical” and many other Heterodox texts were also accepted as being inspired scripture. I will list them at some time in the future.
Oh yeah, the early church sure possessed infallibility when pickin’ them. What is being worked now is tracing how far back books like these go.
It is most likely just a matter of time before they will be traced back to even the “good churches” in the Apostolic Age (1st century), as archaeological finds and tests conducted by MIT, the Smithsonian and others (which trace the synoptic Gospels to the first century) will, trace texts like the aforementioned back to that time period.
what is your evidence for the statement that most of the “good churches” ( I assume you mean the Catholic Church ) accepted the Revelation of Peter?
the evidence is quite the contrary.