But what the New Testament is in itself (Ie the books included) comes from Catholic Tradition.
And so your argument is that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is the assuredly infallible magisterium on what it consists of and means?
It comes from the authority of the Catholic Bishops in Councils, as divinely guaranteed shepherds, to discern infallibly what is (& what wasn't) "canonical scripture".
Without resorting to extrapolative eisegesis based on promises of God's guidance, presence, preservation, just where do you see ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility promised or established in Scripture, or essential for God's guidance, presence and preservation?
Luther took out books from the OT 1300 years later, and he wanted to remove James from the NT, but wiser councils prevailed.
Luther did nothing new, but had substantial Catholic scholarly support for his (non-binding) doubts and judgments here, for contrary to RC propaganda, there
simply was no indisputable canon until after the death of Luther, and doubts and disagreements continued through the centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first indisputable canon for Catholics (though even that of the EOs is not wholly uniform with it, nor does Protestantism wholly conform to Luther's canon, while his Bible included most of the deuteros).
Since the Table-of-Contents is not in the Bible, but is a list discerned by Catholic Councils.........is it infallible?
It is as infallible as the body of established inspired books were which the Lord and NT church often invoked for substantiation, which body was never a manifest matter of dispute with those who sat in the seat of Moses (and who it is though held to the Palestinian canon which excluded the deuteros).
The issue here is, just what makes something infallible? If it is wholly inspired of God then it must be infallible, but so-called infallible decrees of popes and councils are not wholly inspired of God as Scripture is.
Thus you are back to arguing that man cannot ascertain what is of God without your infallible magisterium, and that it infallible because (fill in the blanks____)
It is not consistent to accept The Catholic Church as infallible in interpreting infallibly what should be in The Bible but not infallible in interpreting it!
Which presupposes an infallible magisterium is essential to ascertain what writings and men are of God, which is a false presupposition.
Tell me upon what basis common souls could assuredly ascertain both men and writings were of God prior to their being a church of Rome which presumed it was essential for this.
Yet even if that was accepted, according to some of your own apologists Rome hardly claims to have infallibly interpreted any texts of Scripture. And while many texts can be invoked in support of teachings such as well both concur with, and many contrary things can be excluded, yet within the basic parameters of Catholic teaching RCs have a great deal of liberty to interpret in attempting to support Cath traditions of men.
Yet seeing as the veracity of Catholic teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation then such attempts are often done in condescension to evangelical types in seeking to convert them, with the end result being that they cease to ascertain the veracity of Catholic teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. For Church Law is considered to be supreme.
If you don't accept Christ's creation, His Church, as infallible to discern what is the word of God (& interpret it) you are left with (at best) What R.C. Sproul considered to be “a fallible collection of infallible books.” Which means you have no certain ground at all.
Which logic means one must have an infallible basis to warrant accepting the Catholic Church as infallible, and since an infallible church is essential to know what the word of God is and means, and thus who is speaking it, then before the Catholic church arrived people could not ascertain what was of God.
Of course if they could, and any body of Scripture, however limited, was established as authoritative then your house of cards falls down.
That the Catholic Church as "tradition" precedes the canon is historical fact.
That the Catholic Church as "tradition" decided the canon on its authority is historical fact.
Which no more makes them the infallible authority on what is of God then being the magisterial stewards of OT writings did for those who sat in the magisterial seat of Moses.
The tradition (and the living organic fact) of The Church, is wider & deeper than scripture. Scripture is "The Family History Library" of The Catholic Church.
The former statement conflicts with the latter, for Catholic distinctives are
not manifest in the inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts onward), conflict with it.
So scripture is "normative & formative" and is not contradicted by the Church which decides scripture & interprets it.
Meaning because 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.
John 21:25 "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
Which no more warrants make such
fables as the Assumption to be binding beliefs than it does
Mormonic fantasy. That there is more that can be known does not mean God has chosen to reveal such, nor give someone a blank check to declared what it is.
In Acts 20:35 it says "Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" If you look in the Gospels, you will not see this phrase. So the apostle obviously received this orally, by someone who knew Jesus and quotes from this tradition.
So just how does this make whatever Rome declares to be Divine revelation to be so? We know this statement by Christ because it was recorded as wholly inspired writing, which words of popes are not.
The New Testament is plainly not written as a Church-Creating-Manual....but that is how many Protestant reformers have treated it since 17th Century of Christianity, especially in America.
The Epistles make far more sense as happenstantial survivals of letters from authority to deal with local problems.
Your marginalization of Scripture is not surprising seeing as Catholic distinctives are an addition to Scripture and often rely in wresting statements from the gospels in isolation, for in reality Acts and the epistles reveal how the NT church understood the gospels, and were not Catholic!
This structure, authority & oral tradition come directly from Judaism.....which Christianity is.
You will understand this far more if you realise The Catholic Church (Kingdom-of-God) is "Judaism-fulfilled" not a new religion. Jesus "came to fulfil theLaw not to abolish it"
It is Jewish.....The Apostles didn't need to say this. They just got on doing things the Jewish way and The Jews had The Torah, Law & Prophets scriptures but also the oral Talmud/Mishnah.
Which is why both Judaism and Catholicism conflict with Scripture, with both invoking oral tradition and uninspired writings in so doing. Moreover, despite having magisterial authority, nowhere was OT magisterial authority promised ensured perpetual infallibility as per Rome.
And in the times of The Davidic Kings there was a Royal Steward to rule as the King's deputy. Jesus as the Davidic Messiah-King deliberately reinstitutes this (See & Compare Matt16:18 & Is 22:20-23)
Which is simply you engaging in fallible interpretation, without getting into details as i have
elsewhere here this prophecy is actually contrary to Peter being that Eliakim and if there is any unfulfilled prophecy here it will be in Christ.
And nowhere interpretive of Mt. 16 is Peter called or described as the Rock upon which the church was built. Instead, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or “stone” (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
But neither is the papal Peter of Rome that of R. Catholicism, which even the EOs rightly reject.