While Rome makes a distinction btwn the inspiration of the Scriptures and her (claimed) infallibility, the effect is to make the Roman church the supreme authority over the Scriptures .
. This is exactly the same issue that our Lord Jesus had with the Pharisees:
And according to the RC model, the people should have followed the magisterium which sat in Moses seat, having historical descent and being the stewards of Divine revelation, and thus rejected the anointed holy man in the desert who reproved them, and the Itinerant Preacher from Galilee who did the same based on Scripture. And indeed that is what Rome has done to those who corrected her, even murdering some (but as one RC said, for the Catholic Church cannot be wrong, as she defines what is right and wrong).
All men's hearts are corrupt and we will bend the scripture to this corruption.
RCs will argue that this is why you have divisions, and thus necessitates an infallible authority that defines what Scripture means.
However, this magnifies the problem of individual error to a executive level, for while the teaching office is needed, assured infallibility is not promised in Scripture (regardless if Rome "infallibly" defined that she is), and the presumption of assured veracity by leaders can result in corporate error and persecution of those who do speak truth to positional power. But by raising up true men of God from without the magisterium was often how God preserved truth. And thus the church began - being established (as often said) upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power - and thus it has been preserved as the body of Christ, and manifest as the salt of the earth, with shortcomings for sure.
This is what happened to the Pharisees. This is plainly illustrated in what has happened to Catholic teaching over the centuries. The early fathers recognized this and that is why we have the INSPIRED word of God.
Referencing the so-called "fathers" can have its place (as in establishing the Christians met on the first day of the week in the 1st century) but they were nor unified in all things, and could teach things that were wrong or skewed, and even engage in wresting Scripture for support, as seen here .
A better question is why do Catholics accept books 1000 years later that the early church fathers rejected as inspired?
Some, but not all, while it is clear Luther was not alone in questioning or rejecting some books, even within Trent, which provided the first indisputable canon for RCs - over Luther's dead body.
-— And according to the RC model, the people should have followed the magisterium which sat in Moses seat, having historical descent and being the stewards of Divine revelation, and thus rejected the anointed holy man in the desert who reproved them, and the Itinerant Preacher from Galilee who did the same based on Scripture. ——
Before He established His Church, what did Jesus recommend?
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
Jesus later established His Eternal Davidic Kingdom (Rev. 3:7), with Peter as It’s Prime Minister (Matt. 16:19), similar to the prime minister of the House of David in the Old Testament (Is. 22:22).
Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Isaiah 22:22
I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Revelation 3:7
“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
The papacy couldn’t be any more biblical.
Interesting. In addition, I believe that human history-Gibbon comes to mind-alone refutes the claim by the Roman church to be the “True Church.” The false legends; i.e. pieces of “The True Cross;” Idolatry, the general equality of bishops in the First few centuries, the Rise of the Roman bishop due to the fact Rome was the European world capital at that time; false miracles passed off as true. The accumulation of great wealth the opposite of Christ, the seizure of political power increasing so over the centuries, murders. Bishops exhibiting gross immorality. In short Christ and his apostles were the opposite of the minions of that great organization before whom kings trembled. The Roman Catholic will always claim that the sin of the priest simply does not matter-no matter how gross in intensity and duration. Nonsense! Sin always matters the Jewish sects at the time of Christ became rotten and their teachers false and corrupt and as a result-in part-God’s blessing passed from them. The same thing happened to Rome and that church needed the Reform that came to them after centuries of abuse. Indeed the Counter Reformation itself is implicit recognition of the rot that was Rome.
AH HA!!! Now you've caught my evil and sinister plot with our Catholic friends. In actuality, as you so rightfully point out, the early fathers were not unified in all things. Some of them also held some pretty strange ideas. They were, however, unified on basic principles which they formed councils to sort out.
Personally, I don't mind saying that I follow the teachings of the fathers. As a Protestant I'm free to pick and choose what I want to believe from their writings. Their writings are not inspired. It does not measure up to the scriptures. It is no different than if I picked up a concordance to use as reference material. If something doesn't make sense from a scriptural point of view, then I don't have to accept it. The scriptures are the baseline for all truth. But the writings are like going to Sunday School and listening to what others might say.
Our Catholic friends enjoy telling us how they follow the teachings of the church fathers. In actuality they don't simply because their writings are diverse. They pick and choose the ones they want to recite and ignore the rest. Over time, they have modified the teachings the doctrine of the fathers to such an extent that the best they can offer are quotes from the 15th century. Ask them about atonement, justification, etc., and they don't follow what is written by the early fathers. Catholics have a problem in what the Church now believes and what was the early teachings, which often contradicts. Their reasoning for this deviation-knowledge has evolved.