>I firmly believe, on principle alone, that the majesty of the Bible really is that it is self-justifying, insofar as it has this pretty miraculous tendency of typologically referencing one section by another so that the proper exegesis is always possible from within the scriptures. Insofar as the Scriptures are inspired by God (i.e. "written by His finger"), that this is the case is unsurprising. What we also have to recognize the history of the Bible itself to see how it is *inseparable* both from time / history itself, but especially from a *temporal authority*. I am speaking of the Bible being canonized at the end of the fourth century by the Church. Sure, the Bible displays this "hyperlinkedness", which Jordan Peterson likes to talk about; it's a beautiful thing. But how much less *consistent* would this hyperlinkedness have been if the Church had excluded half of the books that make up the Bible? Or if the Church had included ~20 additional books that are not inspired by God. Do you see? The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, was able to established a *canon* outside of which the hyperlinkedness, indeed the very infallibility itself, would not have been present. Some good commentary I watched yesterday on this relation between Tradition and the canonization of Scripture can be listened to [here](https://youtu.be/s3vjwvN3dNs?t=1229) if you're interested. Simply put, before the Scriptures were canonized (i.e. before certain books were selected, others excluded) there was Tradition, without which there would have been nothing to canonize, in a sense. This is true in two ways. In one sense, the Scripture writings themselves are a part of an apostolic tradition, and just like the various writings of the Church today, their authority and seriousness is determined by the extent to which they agree with everything else in the tradition. And so this aspect would have contributed to the Church's deciding what would and would not qualify as Scripture (all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of course). In the second sense, even without treating the pre-canonization Scriptural texts as part of the tradition themselves, the *oral and apostolic* tradition / beliefs / memories / knowledge of the Apostles *did* qualify and in fact constitute the tradition of the Church up to that point. As I mentioned in my longer comment earlier today, it is the difference between the "meat" St. Paul talks about, and the "milk". As you will remember from the beginning of *Christian Gnosis*, Smith cites St. Paul and Clement of Alexandria to really drive the point home that the early Christians, in fact, recognized two veins of Apostolic truth - that which was written down, codified, etc, and that which remained primarily / solely with the Apostles and their successors. *One cannot understand the Church without recognizing that this meat, this additional knowledge and understanding, though unwritten, influenced the way the early Church interpreted Scripture and established further tradition*. My point is that the universality and practical unanimity about the primacy of Peter as prince of the apostles, even before the word "pontiff" came to be used, is a clear indication that this "meat"-aspect, this oral tradition, this *deeper gnosis* that the Apostles possessed, contributed to an exegesis of Scripture that might seem like a stretch to you, a mere reader 2000 years later, but was abundantly clear to them. The Church exists, among many reasons, so that people like you and me don't need to thoroughly go through Scripture and come to our own conclusions about "what was really meant" - we have the Church and the Tradition it has preserved, in addition to Scripture itself, to provide the correct exegesis, the correct understanding. Christ did not fail to provide this to His people. The Protestant error is thinking one can take Scripture and figure things out from that without Tradition. The Eastern Orthodox error, though more subtle, is similar - while they retain the same early Church tradition, by lacking the temporal head, they are divided on many issues, and because their tradition has "split off" (via schism) they now even interpret the early tradition in a non-traditional light. Whereas those 4th, 5th, and 6th century quotations I provided from the East make clear the primacy of Rome, modern Eastern Orthodox either are unaware of these quotes, or explain them away as either early heresy, or apply their own contemporary exegesis to undue the clarity presented therein. But the problem is, without a single temporal authority, there is nothing stopping all these divided Orthodox churches from applying separate exegeses, coming up with different explanations, and even, as I pointed out before, coming to teach different things about the sacraments and morals. @KingOfWhiteAmerica liked to cite the Scripture about "knowing them by their fruits" - well, I say if we are to judge the Church *as Church*, it ought to be by the fruits that pertain to Her Ecclesiastical mission, which first and foremost is to provide the sacraments and define teachings on faith and morals. If there is no clarity on these principal points in the East, what other fruits are worth considering?