This is THE question.
The defining of this has been an ongoing process since Jesus left us and gave us the Spirit of Truth to protect and help us recall.
You've been Catholic how long? The Truth has been defined and set in stone. The RCC claims sole possession of this truth. Now, they explain away apparent
changes in RCC doctrine using the
developed doctrine of the Doctrine of Developement.
The Church has constantly been seeking the truth and trying to define it. The early church was growing very quickly and things were not always as clear as they are today.
Where does the RCC presume to have gained the authority to
define the Truth? If the Truth was entrusted to the RCC by Jesus, why would the RCC have been "seeking it?"
That is why the Bishops of differeing areas referred to Rome for answers when they had none. Like Matthew 18:17 they referred to the Church. When the local church could not answer it the priest or bishop went to the bishop of that region and when the bishop of that region could not answer it then the Bishop of Rome was asked.
We see this especially in the earlier church and they referred to Rome as the mother church. As things began to settle down and basics were understood I think Bishops of their regions could handle their church most all of the time.
Here's some information which applies to this assertion.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
http://aomin.org/Sermo131.html[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Augustines Sermon 131 [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Even less excusable is the constant use of Augustines comments in Sermon 131, quoted by Keating as "Rome has spoken; the case is closed." Keating puts these words in quotes, indicating that Augustine actually said this. He places it in the context of Papal Infallibility. It is clearly his intention to communicate to his readers that Augustine 1) said these words, and 2) was speaking about the subject in his sermon. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Nothing could be farther from the truth. Augustine never said what Keating quotes. In fact, here is the actual Latin text of the final section of Sermon 131 from Migne, PL 38:734: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Translated, it reads, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise. [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
. . . . The entire sermon is a presentation of the gospel of grace. And to give the proper context to the actual words of Augustine, read the sections that immediately precede his final statements: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
. . . The final words of the sermon, then, in which we find the key phrase (placed in bold), are in reference to this heresy, this error (Pelagianism), and its denial of grace. I simply point out that throughout the sermon you have had one source of authority cited over and over again: Holy Scripture. No quotations of Popes or prelates, just Scripture. With this in mind, we come to the actual passage:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]10. What then was said of the Jews, the same altogether do we see in these men now. "They have a zeal of God: I hear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." What is, "not according to knowledge"? "For being ignorant of Gods righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." My Brethren, share with me in my sorrow. When ye find such as these, do not hide them; be there no such misdirected mercy in you; by all means, when ye find such, hide them not. Convince the gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us. For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! Therefore do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed, we pray that they may be changed. Let us turn to the Lord, etc. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
It is a measure of the utter desperation of the Roman position to have to make reference to such things, in our opinion. The topic is not the bishop of Rome nor the authority of Rome. It is obvious, beyond question, that Augustines point is that Pelagianism is a refuted error. It is not refuted because the bishop of Rome has refuted it. It is refuted because it is opposed to Scripture. Two councils have concluded this, and the bishop of Rome has agreed. From Augustines position, the error has been exposed and refuted. If only those who are in error would come to know the truth! Augustine exhorts his hearers to teach the gainsayers, and pray that they may be dissuaded from their errors. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
This then is the context and content of Sermon 131 of Augustine (which is, btw, Sermon 81 in the Eerdmans set, pp. 501-504 of volume VI for those who wish to read the entirety of the work). It is now painfully obvious that to place the words "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" in quotation marks and attribute them to Augustine in the context of Papal Infallibility is simply inexcusable. But, there is more to the situation than that. For history shows us that Augustine would never have uttered such words in the context Keating alleges. How he responded when Zosimus became bishop of Rome and attacked the North African churches for condemning Pelagius proves, to any person even semi-desirous of fairly dealing with Augustines position, that Augustine did not view the bishop of Rome as the infallible leader of the Christian Church. But to appreciate fully the depth of the error of Roman Catholic controversialists at this point, we must take a few moments to study the history.[/FONT]
But there came times of dispute or not knowing. In times like Arius when Chrisitans were seeing division and trouble the Roman authority ordered a meeting to settle it.
Like I've shown you, most churches have central office of "authority" to which the--for lack of a better word at the moment--satellite churches look to for regulation and guidance.
And it was Rome that put Arius in his place with the support of the other regions and theor bishops.
And I've given you examples where the Bishop of Rome was put in his place by other bishops.
But the defining of the Seat of Peter and the understanding of the Keys was not always clear to all the bishops or priests.
A fact that someone in the church to extreme advantage of and began the suggestion of Papal Supremacy. It is a completely man-made doctrine. It is not founded in Scripture, nor is it unquestionably and soundly substantiated in Christian History or tradition.
The Eastern and Oriental church in the first few centuries (and later) were least likely to be in communication with Rome and the cultures were more different then many of the West. I think this communication barrier caused some of the rift between and East and West because the East was liable to make their own decisions. It was good that the East stuck to their earliest teachings without change because they still hold a very good teaching that is in communion with Rome. But the East was not part of many of the insights in the defining of the Church and so they were not only seperated by distance and cultures but they became kind of locked in time (in my opinion).
Which is why there were such jurisdictional disputes between the East and West--the human weakness of Power hungry men.
My point is that the Church was growing and developing over time. In the very beginning the structure was loose because of the times but as the church grew and became accepted it needed to adapt as well. Which it did.
I simply do not know how to respond to this? You are basically saying it developed rules that suited the purposes the leaders perceived to be necessary.
