Anonymous asked this question on 12/5/2001:

Paul talked of this constantly about the teaching and Traditions to

be passed on by the Apostles. Let me pose a question to all, that
think that the Catholic Church does not have the full teaching of
the Apostles and early Church Fathers. The CC has the writings
and teaching of the Apostles and Church Fathers, and have
followed them to this day. Present me with any manuscript you
have in YOUR, YOUR Pastor or YOUR Churches possession, that is
from any of the Church Fathers from Peter to say 500 AD would
be good enough.

An interesting question, and one that is worth asking, and well

worth answering.

However, you have opened the hornets nest if for no other reason
than the simple fact the those called Hearers, Sub-apostolic
Fathers, Early Fathers, and Late Fathers did not speak with a
single voice on all matters, and most of them changed their
perspective from time to time.

The collections of their writings whether in the Patrologiae Grecae

or Latinae show what a remarkable group of men they were, but
they also show the development of their thoughts and how some
went from orthodoxy to heresiodoxy and sometimes back again
during the courses of their lives and work.

And, this being so, I ask you, when are we to believe that they
were sincere? When are we to believe they are right, and when
do we determine them to be wrong? Do we accept the early
writings of Tertullian only to have to reject them when he became
a Montanist? For example, can we challenge the ever-changing
rule of what is and what is not correct doctrine?

Likewise, the later Fathers departed from many of the “traditions”

of the earlier Fathers, and most from the doctrines of the Church
of Jesus Christ and his apostles as taught in the documents of the
New testament.
Let us take one Catholic teaching to begin with: the Infallibility of
the bishop of Rome, who came to be called the Pope, ‘father’ or
supreme pontiff of all Christendom.

On this point, Dollinger, a Roman Catholic writer of "unrivaled

knowledge" and great ability (excommunicated for his refusal to
accept the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope), is quoted as
declaring:

"Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels
(Matt. 16:18; John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the
Roman Bishops ... not one of them whose commentaries we
possess—Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret,
and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas—has
dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the
consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of
them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would
build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to
his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or
Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else
they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other
Apostles, the Twelve being together the foundation-stones of the
Church."

The scriptures prove that Peter was not a bishop; he was an

apostle. As an apostle he might perform, if he chose to do so, the
functions of a bishop, because the greater apostolic authority
embraced the lesser authority of the bishop.

There is no word in the canonical scriptures justifying a claim that

the supreme apostolic authority can be possessed or exercised by
any lesser authority in the Church than the full apostleship.

There is no record in these scriptures of the conferring upon

anyone of a part of the apostolic authority. The only scriptural
record showing that the apostles conferred their authority upon
any one, was upon Matthias, and this was the full authority for he
was made a member of the Twelve.

Now the canonical Acts and Epistles clearly show that in the
Primitive Church, bishops were local officers with the function of
caring for the needs of the flock, hence of a lesser authority than
the apostolic, and further that they were under the direction and
jurisdiction of the Apostles who were in general charge of the
Church, being so ordained, set apart, and charged by Christ
himself.

Furthermore, a basic ecclesiastical principle is that a lesser

ecclesiastical officer does not possess the authority and cannot
exercise the functions of a higher ecclesiastical officer. This
principle seems fully recognized by the Roman Church.

This situation presents the Western Church with this dilemma:

Since the Roman Pope (prior to the time of Gregory VII, the title
pope "continued to be bestowed on bishops in general" in
countries of the west, in eastern usage the title "was commonly
restricted to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria") claims as
bishop of Rome apostolic authority allegedly derived from Peter,
and if not already a bishop, the Pope must, before coronation,
receive "the orders which are still owing to him inclusive of the
priestly consecration," there must be found further scripture,
further revelation from God, in addition to the accepted canonical
scriptures authorizing a bishop in perpetuity to act lawfully as an
apostle. But, this scripture not appearing in the accepted
canonical scripture, such scripture could come only as all other
scripture has come, by revelation from God.

Once more, the Primitive Church was built on revelation of the

Divine will. There must be further revelation to change, to add to,
or to take from, the revelations already given.

So the Roman Church must either produce the revelation from

God authorizing a bishop to exercise the apostolic calling (and it
is understood the Church does not admit the principle of
continuous revelation from God, nor claim it), or it must surrender
the claim of the alleged divine apostolic authority of the Pope, for
which it has no such authorizing revelation. And in this relation we
may observe that argument is not revelation, and neither is
tradition, however old, either accepted or ex parte.

Ronnie