The gospels which were included support the idea of a physical, bodily resurrection of Christ, witnessed only by a select few. These few would, by virtue of witnessing the resurrection, have the authority to continue and shape the church. The gospels which were excluded portrayed the resurrection as a non-physical reappearance witnessed by many, which would have essentially turned an oligarchical structure into an egalitarian one.
Is this based on personal familiarity with all the texts involved? There aren’t many and they aren’t hard to find. Just knowing the texts makes this interpretation of history seem pretty unlikely, or at least simplified to the point of distortion. That being said, it is certainly among the plausible explanations for what occurred.
Further, the later rules and ideas that have been added into the church’s beliefs largely come from supposedly infallible papal decree, the infallibility coming from the authority of the successors of Peter (as the first to witness the resurrection).
The doctrine of the Pope’s personal infallibility has not played a major role in the development of Catholic doctrine. According to Catholic doctrine, it almost never applies. I don’t want to sidetrack a really interesting discussion… but this seems like a pretty clear factual mistake that might as well be pointed out.
Is this based on personal familiarity with all the texts involved? There aren’t many and they aren’t hard to find. Just knowing the texts makes this interpretation of history seem pretty unlikely, or at least simplified to the point of distortion. That being said, it is certainly among the plausible explanations for what occurred.
The doctrine of the Pope’s personal infallibility has not played a major role in the development of Catholic doctrine. According to Catholic doctrine, it almost never applies. I don’t want to sidetrack a really interesting discussion… but this seems like a pretty clear factual mistake that might as well be pointed out.