Replies

This is the first part of my reply. Please keep in mind if I misunderstood anything you said I apologize and gladly accept your correction.

• But just as Peter was protected from writing error when he penned his epistle so were the Councils protected from error when called to defend the faith against heresy. I find NO Biblical support for that . . . any more than the religious rulers in Jerusalem were protected from being children of satan . . . though admittedly, Pentecost was after that.
Do you mean you find no Biblical support for my statement about Peter or about the Councils? If you mean the latter I will answer that those Protestant churches of the Reformation do believe the Creeds have authority. Meaning what they teach is true and a person who rejects those teachings can rightly be accused of heresy. This authority is not equal to Scripture which of course has primacy of authority in establishing the doctrines of such Protestant churches. They accept the Creeds because what is found in them can be supported in Scripture. I will gladly be corrected by I don’t think these Protestant churches believe the Creeds teach what is right because a group of men just happened to luck out and get it right. Rather what the Creeds teach is true because they can be linked to inspired and inerrant Scripture which gains its inerrancy and inspiration from the Holy Spirit. I have to admit I can not remember which Councils are accepted by the Churches of the Reformation. I think it is either the first 5 or the first 7. And remember I am speaking of all persons together in Council not individuals. So your comparison to the leaders in Jerusalem falls short. But I will contend I do not think this Charism existed in the OT for the simple reason there was no Church in the OT. And this was something promised by Christ to His Church. And I use that in a much broader sense than the Catholic definition of Church.
However, Paul’s writings were after Pentecost. And he exhorted MANY congregations about error that Holy Spirit did not protect them from. And, the degree to which they ignored Paul’s exhortations, they were not protected.
Congregations are not the same as individual Churches independent of any ecclesiastical authority. As such they do not have the protection from teaching error that I mentioned. Anymore than the parish of St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis is protected from practicing base heresy. But your statement brings to mind something else. By what authority did Paul exhort these congregations? No doubt they too read scripture. They probably examined them and felt their interpretation was valid. So why was their interpretation condemned by Paul? And why does no one argue that they would have been justified in starting their own Church? Could it be that Paul ( who termed himself one of the Apostles) did have the authority to discern what was orthodox and what was heresy? If he did where did this come from? Was it of natural or supernatural orgin?
The fantasy of the RC magicsterical being automatically, in all respects theological protected by Holy Spirit from all error is an utterly outrageous fantasy with no Scriptural AND NO HISTORICAL support at all.
Ok that is a whole other thread topic. So let us just agree to disagree on this one. But will you grant that the Scripture is a source of authority in both Catholic and Protestant churches?