A false dichotomy. The Magesterium and Apostolic Traditions do not contradict Scriptures. They are all one body of teachings that come from God. The Apostles KNEW they were teaching the Word of God - and not just in written form. They KNEW they were infallibly giving Christ's teachings:
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Gal 1:6-9
There is NO room for error here. One either believes ALL of what the Apostles taught, or none of it. Either they are God's spokesmen, or not. Thus, there is NOT room for 10,000 different denominations, each "teaching the Word of God". Ireneaus knew this, as well. He held that Scriptures ALONE were NOT the proper way of spreading the Word of God. Look what he writes against those who read the Scriptures WITHOUT the Church...
Chapter 1 title: ABSURD IDEAS OF THE DISCIPLES OF VALENTINUS AS TO THE ORIGIN, NAME, ORDER, AND CONJUGAL PRODUCTIONS OF THEIR FANCIED AEONS, WITH THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE WHICH THEY ADAPT TO THEIR OPINIONS
"Now, if we add up the numbers of the hours here mentioned, the sum total will be thirty: for one, three, six, nine, and eleven, when added together, form thirty. And by the hours, they hold that the AEons were pointed out; while they maintain that these are great, and wonderful, and hitherto unspeakable mysteries which it is their special function to develop; and so they proceed when they find anything in the multitude of things contained in the Scriptures which they can adopt and accommodate to their baseless speculations". Chapter 1, Book 1, Against Heresies.
CHAP. XVIII. Title --PASSAGES FROM MOSES, WHICH THE HERETICS PERVERT TO THE SUPPORT OF THEIR HYPOTHESIS.
"Again, they assert that the sun, the great light-giver, was formed on the fourth day, with a reference to the number of the Tetrad. So also, according to them, the courts of the tabernacle constructed by Moses, being composed of fine linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, pointed to the same image. Moreover, they maintain that the long robe of the priest failing over his feet, as being adorned with four rows of precious stones, indicates the Tetrad; and if there are any other things in the Scriptures which can possibly be dragged into the number four, they declare that these had their being with a view to the Tetrad." Chapter 18, Book 1, Against Heresies
"I carefully noticed the passages which they garble from the Scriptures, with the view of adapting them to their own fictions. Moreover, I minutely narrated the manner in which, by means of numbers, and by the twenty-four letters of the alphabet, they boldly endeavour to establish [what they regard as] truth"
Book 2, Preface, Against Heresies
There are many such notations in Ireneaus' work. HE notes that the heretics use the very same Scriptures to "prove" their nonsense! Have things really changed from 1800 years ago regarding those who invent their own theologies? He realizes that Scripture alone utterly fails to teach the Word of God as first taught by Paul in Galatians.
How can we know the truth that Scriptures teach? How can we know what God intended? Quite easily. We go to the Apostolic Church. That is what St. Ireneaus taught.
All one needs to do is read Book 3. Rather than quoting that entire book, I will give the Chapter titles...
CHAP. II.--THE HERETICS FOLLOW NEITHER SCRIPTURE NOR TRADITION.
CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
An interesting comment by Ireneaus must be noted in this Chapter 3:
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
CHAP. IV.--THE TRUTH IS TO BE FOUND NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE SOLE DEPOSITORY OF APOSTOLICAL DOCTRINE. HERESIES ARE OF RECENT FORMATION, AND CANNOT TRACE THEIR ORIGIN UP TO THE APOSTLES.
CHAP. V. -- CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES, WITHOUT ANY FRAUD, DECEPTION, OR HYPOCRISY, PREACHED THAT ONE GOD, THE FATHER, WAS THE FOUNDER OF ALL THINGS. THEY DID NOT ACCOMMODATE THEIR DOCTRINETO THE PREPOSSESSIONS OF THEIR HEARERS.
And this brings us back to Galatians chapter 1. Either you believe that Christ left Apostles to infallibly guide the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, or you invent and make up your own gospel, a false gospel that Paul calls accursed. Ireneaus writes along the same concept and the Church continues to teach the same thing.
The question you need to answer is this: Is the Church that arose there in Rome after Constantine and the Council of Nicea the same Church that Irenaeus wrote about? While the Church of Rome in Irenaeus' day may have been close to orthodox in doctrine and practice, did the Church of Rome in Constantine's day absorb into its midst the Mystery religions of the gnostics and heretics.
Every Catholic naturally answers that implicitly in the positive - We believe that the Church following Constantine's day is the very same Catholic Church before Constantine. It is utterly ridiculous to propose ANOTHER Cahtolic Church that existed alongside the one that received religious freedom with the Edict of Milan. No other Catholic Church (which means "universal") existed. It is a figment of your imagination that points to some local community of Manicheans and calling them the UNIVERSAL Church that existed everywhere and calling THEM the Catholic Church. This confusion is unwarranted.
All Catholics need to step back and take an honest objective look at just what they are banking their eternal destiny upon, and whether many of those things don't have origins in the heretics and gnostics of the early church.?
And Protestants? Do they also need to make an honest and objective look into history, as well? Christ established a visible community, a church. He said THIS community would exist for all time. Remaining outside of this visible community - would you consider this in line with Christ's command:
"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16
The question, which I cannot answer for you, is, are YOU despising the Gospel of the Apostles, for example, as noted by Paul, that is from God? That continues to be taught by the Apostles Successors? Or are you following your own gospel?
Regards
I want to thank you for this post.
Why do you persist in quoting Scripture as if you believe it to be authoritative when in truth the writings of Augustine are more authoritative to the RCC? He is the foundation of RCC theology.
Why not? If the authority is the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit who inspired those Scriptures and those in the churches are from time to time "corrected" by those Scriptures and the Holy Spirit who dictated those Scriptures to the apostles and prophets, then, even though they may disagree on interpretations, the Book and the God within that Book is what unites them, and in time will bring them ever closer together.
Haven't you heard of "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose what to believe from the RCC. There are infinitely more diversities of them than there are church denominations.
Ireneaus knew this, as well. He held that Scriptures ALONE were NOT the proper way of spreading the Word of God. Look what he writes against those who read the Scriptures WITHOUT the Church.
Irenaeus wrote that in matters of importance, one should defer to the writings of the apostles. Now maybe he was just referring to the presbyters of the church deferring to the writings of the apostles in matters of importance. If that is what Irenaeus is saying, then it sounds to me as if one shouldn't be in leadership in the church unless he puts Scripture above his own office, much like the President or Congress or the Judiciary whose authority to make decisions derives from that certain written document which is above them not below them, despite their actions to the contrary.
Where apostolic succession falls apart is exactly on that point. Those things that were written down were important and the leaders of the churches took an oath [so to speak] to function under them. When they did not teach and operate under the authority of those documents that gave them their right to office, they forfeited their Scriptural authority. Do you think Paul wanted those in the churches to keep following those who disdained the writings of the apostles and prophets by saying that these documents must be balanced against things that other people wrote and may have said.
Even if one were to claim the doctrine of apostolic succession, Scripture would still have to be that which ruled those who sat in the seat, but the RCC claims that they are not ruled by Scripture, but by a blend of Scripture and writings as from Irenaeus, etc, and oral traditions with no sources. This idea was elucidated by Augustine. Was he ever reprimanded for that?