The Three-legged Stool of Roman Catholicism Adds Up to: Sola Ecclesia

I've seen a few cyber-buzzing's about the Protestant use of the term, sola ecclesia. The phrase is said to be inaccurate because Roman Catholicism holds to the "three-legged stool" model. As someone who has utilized the phrase "sola ecclesia" when evaluating Roman Catholicism, here is why I do so:  

Sacred Scripture: the Roman Catholic Church infallibly decided what books are in the Bible

Sacred Tradition: the Roman Catholic Church infallibly decides which traditions are authentic "Tradition"

Magisterium: the Roman Catholic Church claims to have an infallible Magisterium that serves as an infallible teaching authority.

Each of the legs of "three-legged stool" all boil down to the same infallible authority: the Roman Catholic Church. If Roman Catholics want to use the "three-legged stool" analogy. I suggest that it would be more accurate to say, "upside-down three-legged stool." 

If you are a Roman Catholic using the "three-legged stool" analogy, would you be please let me know where this analogy originated? From a cursory search, its origin is murky, with one website claiming a version of it originated in Anglicanism ("holy scripture, sacred tradition, and our God-given gift of reason"). I spent a few minutes on the Vatican website searching the phrase "three-legged stool" and did not get any meaningful hits. 

Google AI isn't always accurate, but if it it's correct, it would be rather ironic that the analogy was taken from... Protestantism!

Defined Biblical Texts of the Roman Catholic Church

The following is from the Beggars All archive:

  Here are some  tidbits from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the job the infallible church has done in 2000 years of infallible biblical interpretation:

“The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle.”source

"...the Holy Fathers, we say, are of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith...This unanimity is not destroyed by the silence of some of the foremost Fathers, and is sufficiently guaranteed by the consentient voice of the principal patristic writers living at any critical period, or by the agreement of commentators living at various times; but the unanimity is destroyed if some of the Fathers openly deny the correctness of the interpretation given by the others, or if they explain the passage in such a way as to render impossible the explanation given by others."

So there you have it: in 2000 years the infallible church took care of a few scripture passages. Great job.

The infallible church also looks to the unanimous consent of the fathers for some help in figuring out the Bible. Let’s try this for some ‘certainty’. We’ll start with the Fathers’ comments on Matthew 16:18- “The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18.” After reading this link, the line above from the Catholic Encyclopedia really has an interesting ring to it: "...the unanimity is destroyed if some of the Fathers openly deny the correctness of the interpretation given by the others, or if they explain the passage in such a way as to render impossible the explanation given by others."

Addendum:

“Very few texts have in fact been authoritatively determined and ‘there consequently remain many important matters in the explanation of which sagacity and ingenuity of Catholic interpreters can and should be freely exercised…” [Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.60, first column (as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 223].

“The number of texts infallibly interpreted by the Church is small…It has been estimated indeed that the total of such texts is under twenty, though there are of course many other indirectly determined”[Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.59, second column ((as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 224]. King mentions this commentary lists Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 53, and 2 Maccabees 12:43 as infallibly defined, but gives no evidence to prove the assertion.

“The Council of Trent teaches that Rom., v, 12, refers to original sin (Sess. V, cc. ii, iv), that John, iii, 5, teaches the absolute necessity of the baptism of water (Sess. V, c. iv; Sess. VII, De bapt., c. ii), that Matt., xxvi, 26 sq. is to be understood in the proper sense (Sess. XIII, cap. i); the Vatican Council gives a direct definition of the texts, Matt., xvi, 16 sqq. and John, xxi, 15 sqq. Many more Scripture texts are indirectly defined by the definition of certain doctrines and the condemnation of certain errors” [Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Entry: Biblical Exegesis].

"...the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress. A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack" [PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, On The Study Of Holy Scripture (Encylical Of Pope Leo XIII, November 18, 1893].

Why Roman Catholics Really Do Have a Different Canon

What exactly is meant by the term "canon"? Technically, the word  comes from a Semitic root basically meaning "reed." The sense of the term was expanded to mean "straight rod" or "staff." This term was used as descriptive of a measuring rod or ruler in architecture. In Biblical Greek the term means measure, rule, or norm. When we think of the Scriptures as "canon", we're saying that it alone is the measuring rod or standard all else is be judged by.  The canon of Scripture is a collection of writings recognized as inspired, authoritative and normative for the faith and practice of the church.  Since the Bible is the very word of God, how could it be any other way? How could there be any other or higher ultimate standard, measuring rod, or ruler that is authoritative and normative than the very words of God?

This is often missed by those engaging Roman Catholics. If the canon is the very voice of God and the measuring rod, then it must be that which judges all things, including church history, any alleged "infallible" pronouncements, [T]radition and [t]radition. It can't logically be any other way. It can't be that infallible pronouncements and Tradition measure or rule what the Bible says on anything. The Bible is to measure and rule the church rather than the church measuring and ruling the Bible. If this were reversed, the Bible in effect would no longer be functioning as canon. The church, Tradition, infallible pronouncements, etc., would be functioning as the canon. This is what is meant by the phrase sola ecclesia. I'm not sure who originally coined the phrase, but it is indeed an apt way to summarize the actual Roman Catholic rule of faith or measuring rod.  Dr White explained long ago:

What is sola ecclesia? It is the concept that the Roman Church (exemplified in the Papacy especially) is the sole and final authority in all matters. Scripture and Tradition (whatever that is in particular) are subservient to the Church, despite Rome’s protests otherwise. A moment’s reflection demonstrates why this is: Rome claims to define both what Scripture is (the canon), and what Scripture says (interpretation of particular passages, as well as the message of Scripture en toto). Likewise, she claims to be able to determine what is "tradition"... and what this tradition then means. Hence, if you control the definition of both the content and meaning of both Scripture and Tradition and you claim to be infallible as well (meaning you cannot retract what you have decided these things teach and have officially defined these views in the past), the result is inevitable: sola ecclesia. The Church as the final authority in all things.

Quick, fun blurb on the RC view of the Scripture

Alexander Greco said (well, more or less)...

And yet you still can't tell us if this here RC buzzword, this other issue that should be redefined as "annulment in disguise", this other thing that virtually all evangelicals and Reformed reject, this here noble action, this huge RC buzzword, etc. are in keeping with the Gospel. The only reason why you reject homosexuality is because Scripture says so, but even at that point you are at a loss as to why.

2:38 PM, August 18, 2010 

Rhology said...

Gosh, thanks Alexander.

The only reason why you reject homosexuality is because Scripture says so, but even at that point you are at a loss as to why.

Right, b/c "God said so" is not nearly a good enough reason.

2:43 PM, August 18, 2010 

Roman Catholic Delusions - 2

lozeerose has responded here to my earlier post and the post is quite long. That's the way it goes sometimes, so let's see what comes of it.
First, let's recall that lozeerose told us earlier:

if there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Scripture? Also, if you are inspired by the Holy Spirit and I as well, then how is your interpretation valid and mine not?

Don't forget that this is a conversation-killer. Once we start talking about "well, that's just your interpretation!", there is nothing else to say, from either side. Either you admit that God is capable of revealing Himself in such a way as to be comprehensible to people or you don't. Either you admit that people can speak in such a way as to be comprehensible to others or you don't. Unfortunately this doesn't cover the issue of human diversity and sin. It is not necessarily the author's fault when a reader distorts, misunderstands, neglects parts of, ignores parts of, is ignorant of other parts of, or twists his text. Much less God's fault.

Also, I deny the premise - neither of us are inspired by the Holy Spirit. And only one of us is illumined by the Holy Spirit, and it ain't him.

Finally, let us remember that part of lozeerose's thesis can be pushed right back on him. If there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Magisterial declarations? Also, if you are inspired by the Holy Spirit and I as well, then how is your interpretation of Magisterial declarations valid and mine not?
Does he answer the question? Let's take a look.

(Sidenote - this discussion originally branched off of a discussion on the topic of the permissibility of divorce, so I'll be skipping over those parts. For a biblically-sound and actually quite enlightening discussion of the biblical teaching on divorce, listen to John MacArthur's sermon series on the topic as he weaves it together with church discipline. RCs would do well, also, to listen to it so they could learn what the words "church discipline" mean.)

If you were to examine these verses, removing your own prejudices (difficult for any person) and place them in context you will note that Scripture does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings.

1) I have examined them many times.
2) They do not, when EXEgeted, lead the unbiased reader to place his entire faith and spiritual heritage in a church to be founded sometime in the authors' future, in a city thousands of miles away, under a man who usurps the Holy Spirit's rightful title of "Vicar of Christ", who contrary to all biblical indications is the sole exception to the biblical "only God is infallible" rule, who tells us to worship dead people, and who adds works (which we can't perform) and legalistic extra dogmas (like the Assumption of Mary) to the Gospel. If you want to EISEgete that stuff in there, of course, nobody can stop you, but let's not act like it's derived from the text.
3) Notice the voice of fideistic devotion to Rome. Rome is automatically and by default above examination and judgment by the Scripture, b/c lozeerose assumes that Rome's teaching cannot contradict Scr.

After all, the Bible is a Catholic book.

I don't even know what this means. Does he mean it was written by the Roman Church? That would be indefensible. Does he mean little-c "catholic", but his finger reflexively held down the Shift key? Does he genuinely not know the diff between little-c "catholic" and big-C "Catholic"? Or does he simply not care?
And since he told us earlier that he intended "to approach you both on your Sola Scriptura level", does he think that making such crucial distinctions is unimportant?

you and Vox make the assumption that the Church teaches that individuals cannot interpret Scripture on their own.

Actually, that's what lozeerose just finished telling us himself. And what CatholicNick was telling us before that.

What it prohibits is the acceptance of interpretations that are contrary to Church teaching.

Which means precisely what we said.
And, as noted above, is the statement of an unthinking drone, who refuses to put the Scripture above his church.

Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament (John 6 for one)

1) Note how he inconsistently presumes us to be able to interp John 6 properly.
2) Even though John 6 has very little to do with the Eucharist.
3) And even though the Roman Eucharist is actually heretical by both our standards.

I cite these passages because they themselves are cited in the Catechism

1) So now an individual can understand the CCC, eh? But moreso than the Bible, apparently.
2) Does he ever stop to ask himself whether the CCC is in fact correct to cite them?

If, by reading Scripture, your interpretation lends to a contradictory understanding then you are definitively wrong concerning this truth and must reconsider in order to truly call yourself a Christian (see the account of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:27-39).

It is difficult to know what the Acts 8 psg is supposed to tell us.
1) Philip was not an apostle, and so is not part of the supposed "apostolic succession" of the Magisterium.
2) And he was an individual anyway. When we cite individual early church writers that disagree with modern Roman dogma, what do we hear? "He was just speaking as a private theologian" or some other line of turtle droppings. I guess I missed where "infallible ex cathedra" indicators appear in the Acts 8 psg. Maybe lozeerose can point it out to us. In fact, just look at further down his post - I pointed out where Irenæus disagreed with lozeerose's statement, and lozeerose drops him in the trash can - " I will comment on this by stating that just because St. Irenaues was a Father of the Church, it does not make him or his writings infallible. Saints are not infallible, just holy."
3) Sola Scriptura is not: A claim that the Bible contains all knowledge; A denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth; A denial that other Christians can help those less knowledgeable to understand the Scr; A denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
4) The eunuch didn't tell Philip that he had no idea what the psg said. He asked for clarification on ONE THING.
5) And that was very plausibly b/c he didn't know the story of Jesus' earthly ministry, death, and resurrection. Philip did know it. We in modern times hardly have that excuse.

If I include Church docs it is to provide you with Church teachings in her own words.

Which he expects me to understand. Else he wouldn't cite them. This is treading awfully close to disingenuousness.

This is why it is important to read Church documents so that you and/or I can scrutinize her teachings against Sacred Scripture

That's rich. Didn't he just finish telling us that "you will note that Scripture does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings"?

You cannot have Church docs without Scripture.

Sure you can. Church docs on the Assumption of Mary, Mary as Co-Redemptrix... in fact, virtually the entire edifice of Mariolatry is built on an entirely different foundation than Scripture, simply b/c Scr knows nothing of the Marian dogmas.

Remember that the Bible is not the end-all, be-all of the Word of God.

Perhaps lozeerose could make a positive case for why he thinks the Word of God is also found elsewhere. And how that fits in with Mark 7:1-13. And why the Apostle Paul never directed us to this other Word of God, but only to Scr.

2Thess 2:15

Does lozeerose prove that the word of mouth is different in content than the letter mentioned? That the tradition mentioned there is distinct from the Scripture?

Rhology: If you are suggesting that we accept the RCC a priori as the infallible interpreter, please let me know why I should. After all, there's lots of competition out there for that spot! EOC
lozeerose: You must look at history.

1) How would that help? Do I have any reason to think that lozeerose wouldn't simply say "you will note that history does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings"?
2) Which is how all of these bodies I mentioned operate. Bring up historical teachings that disagree with their modern dogma, and alluvasudden they're written out, assigned to "just a private theologian" status. Or part of the "Great Apostasy" or something. And it all makes sense - if the modern body is infallible, then history, just like Scripture, says what the modern infallible body says it means. No means of correction is possible.

Remember I mentioned above that I pointed out where Irenæus disagreed with lozeerose's statement, and lozeerose drops him in the trash can - " I will comment on this by stating that just because St. Irenaues was a Father of the Church, it does not make him or his writings infallible. Saints are not infallible, just holy."
That's why it's intellectually dishonest for someone in lozeerose's position to tell me to verify RCC's claims against history.

the first ecumenical council was the Council of Jerusalem where Matthias was elected to take the place of Judas (Acts 1:20, 25-26)

1) Where does the Scr refer to the Acts 1 meeting as a "council"?
2) Why do other RCs refer to the "Council of Jerusalem" as that which occurrs in Acts 15? After all, if there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Scripture? Also, if lozeerose is inspired by the Holy Spirit and other RCs as well, then how is his interpretation valid and others' not?
3) Matthias wasn't elected at all.
Acts 1:23So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
4) Uh oh - we have a problem.  lozeerose has just told us that Matthias was elected.  No doubt other RCs, who actually take the time to read the passage, would tell us that Matthias was, for example, chosen by lot.  lozeerose disagrees with other RCs.
5) We have another problem. 
From here:  He (Peter) headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26)
From here: After Judas’s death the eleven apostles convened; the Holy Spirit chose Matthias to take Judas’s place
From here:  The one exception to this was Matthias, who replaced Judas. He was confirmed in office by God (Acts 1:24-26), and, though he did not receive his commission from Christ in person, he was a witness to Christ's ministry (1:15-23).
From here: Matthias was chosen as apostle by the other apostles to replace Judas Iscariot. This choice was, according to the Acts of the Apostles, made directly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Once elected, he was treated exactly as one of the original Twelve.

The problem is twofold:
a. 3 of the 4 articles cited here get it wrong.  Where does the Acts psg give any indication that Matthias was "elected"?  Will lozeerose dare to tell us that when Acts says "the lot fell to Matthias", since The Church has apparently spoken, it actually means "Matthias was elected"?  It's not as if the psg is unclear, and it inspires that much less confidence in RCs' exegetical abilities that they mix up something this simple.
b. These RC documents don't agree with each other on this question.  And, again, it's not as if the Acts psg is unclear.  Further, it will not solve lozeerose's problem to appeal to "they're just private theologians" here, since he has repeatedly claimed unity in the RCC, and that multiplicity of conflicting interps = disunity, which he decries.  Judging by his own standards in this very simple exegetical question, RCC shoots a big fat fail.

Not sure what your getting at here, but again, the Church does not prohibit personal interp, just warns us that personal interp can lead to error and as such if your interp is contradicts the Church then you can rest assure your interp is wrong.

Throughout this whole post, lozeerose shows no recognition of the obvious fact that you still have to engage in personal interp to understand Magisterial declarations. So, if we apply his ultra-skeptical (when convenient for him and for Rome) epistemological position consistently, it's all a matter of "if your interp of Scr contradicts your interp of what RCC says". How does that get him or anyone anywhere? The guy whose interp of Magisterial docs differs from mine could simply say "Nuh uh, the Church said this"...

Both the JW and LDS, and even yourself, presuppose many things concerning Scripture and even the Church.

And the RC doesn't? More disingenuous special pleading.

infallibility is not something the Church invented; it is a characteristic that was conveyed on her by Jesus via the Holy Spirit (Matthew 16:16,18; 28:20, Luke 10:16, John 14:26; 16:13, 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 John 2:27, Acts 6:10; 15:28).

What good do all these citations do anyone? Do I have any reason to think that lozeerose wouldn't simply say "you will note that Scripture does not (cannot) contradict Church teachings"?
Since in his mind Scr cannot contradict RC dogma, it is a given, unable to be examined and parsed, that these psgs support RC dogma. You do not have the right to interp these psgs in a way that dissents from RC teaching.

That is why these two sects must go outside of Scripture to claim a type of infallibility (they do not proclaim is like the Catholic Church does, as far as I know) and why Protestant churches don’t even attempt it.

Actually, their methods of claiming infallibility seem to be exactly the same as RCC's. Trumpet their infallibility, then when challenged on an indefensible point, retreat to special pleading.
An LDS example - The Bible says God "knows of no other god". LDS response - "the infallible Prophet tells us that it doesn't mean that"; or alternatively "this was not translated correctly".
A JW example - The WatchTower claimed the world would end in 1914. When it didn't, it just hoped people would ignore the failed prophecy and hastily redefined what they really meant back then, but the world would end in the 70s, etc. If challenged on that, just retreat to "your church is apostate".
A RC example - claim "the ancient and constant faith of the universal church" affirms a doctrine like Vatican I did of papal infallibility. Then when an ancient dissenting voice is brought fwd to demonstrate this statement is ludicrous, retreat to "he was just speaking as a private theologian"; or alternatively "I can show you dozens of pages of (out of context) church fathers affirming the doctrine", as if "constant" and "universal" allow for exceptions.

You are spot on except that I do not wrestle with the interplay of unity vis-a-vis disunity that is obviously expected and anticipated in the passages you cite especially the Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-26.

That's already been dealt with and dismissed.

The Catholic Church, as an institution, does not exhibit doctrinal disunity

1) Uh oh.
2) Uh oh again.
3) See above for the slipup with respect to Matthias.
4) Is lozeerose really unaware of the rampant liberalism at work within official RC circles?  And by official, I mean "not mostly-anonymous RC laymen bloggers, but actual priests and Vatican staff and theologians".
5) And there is a multitude of issues on which RCs do not agree.

• Darwinian evolution vs not-Darwinian evolution
• Papal infallibility
• Whether the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed or whether she was assumed before death
• Whether the Pope is subject to Ecumenical Councils
• What mode of predestination is right - ie Molinism vs Augustinian
• Extra ecclesiam nulla salus
• Mass in Latin or in vernacular
• Whether Trent closed the canon or not

etc.
IOW, that claim is empty.

Catholic Church, the Body of Christ, has stood for over 2,000 years without compromising her doctrines.

As I said above, bring up historical teachings that disagree with their modern dogma, and alluvasudden they're written out, assigned to "just a private theologian" status.

Did Judas’ betrayal disprove the divinity of Jesus? No.

That's a funny thing to say.
So, does Lutherans' getting the doctrine of the Eucharist wrong disprove the true biblical doctrine of the Eucharist? I guess, if lozeerose were to be consistent, he'd say no.
Do some Baptists' getting all hot and bothered about teetotalling disprove the true biblical doctrine of the permissibility of imbibing adult beverages (but not getting drunk)? Apparently not.
This concession destroys any argument lozeerose was trying to make about the preferability of RC unity over Protestant chaos.

Rhology: What's more, you're instating an over-realised eschatology. There's a reason why this is not Heaven.
lozeerose: You are aware that eschatology is the study of “last things” right?

Yep, I sure am. The point is that expecting perfect unity on this Earth, before the Eschaton, is chasing the end of the rainbow. "Perfect unity" is the crock o' gold. And since it's a fantasy, most of lozeerose's argument is consigned to the fantastic as well.

How else do you interpret Scripture if not through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

His exegesis of 2 Peter 1:20 is surprisingly, but typically, bad. Interpretation of a prophecy received by an individual church member, is not in view here; rather the emphasis is on the means of God's inspiring the text. Peter says that the prophetic word is yet more certain than his own eyewitness experiences, and goes on to tell us that "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God".

So every church is its own truth, yet they differ in doctrine?

I have no idea how this question follows from my treatment of 1 Tim 3:15.

Sounds like God is a bit confused.

So apparently, if God's revelation were really clear, there would never be any differences in doctrine. If differences DO occur, it's God's fault.
1) How does lozeerose get there?
2) Since RCC doesn't have unity, this cuts his own throat.

So did lozeerose solve the problem of his own creation, namely "why so many interpretations if there's one God"? Or did he assume that divine revelation and text are actually comprehensible to human beings, thus undercutting one of his main points? Come to think of it, did he write a blogpost, expecting it to be comprehensible to human beings? After all, if there is only one lozeerose, then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of his blogpost? If I were to remind him that his blogpost actually consisted of various methods for eating a grilled dogpoop sandwich, is that a valid interpretation? Who are you, mere unauthoritative, fallible, private individual, to tell me it does not in fact deal with the topic of dogpoop? He's not one of those Sola Scripturists, is he?

Look, the "unity" argument just doesn't work

Let me try to give a fuller explanation of the point of my last post with respect to what David B has said starting here.

First and foremost, nothing in this post is intended to put forward a Sola Scripturist position.  The point is to rebut a very common Sola Ecclesia-ist argument, and nothing more.  SEists like to rip Sola Scr b/c it produces all these denominations.  I'm just showing another way (to say nothing of what's already been said that this is a terribly stupid argument to use.

David B says that the GOC have excommunicated themselves.
This is not excommunication, at least not biblically.  Biblical excommunication/church discipline is an action taken by the church.  Of course there's room biblically for them to go "out from us" (1 John 2), but that's not the same thing.  So when I said "So excommunicate them" and David B said "Already done", this is not precise.  It would have been far more precise and informative, apparently, to say "We can't; they already left", although apparently some of these GOC-ers, the priest in question included, see themselves as "resisting from within".  Within what, if not EOC?
Along those lines, I'd asked for an "authoritative church statement", and didn't get one.  I'd still like to know whether that exists, or whether this is David B's private, fallible interpretation of history.  (Not that this is a big deal to me, but I say that to mock still others who use the "private fallible interpretation" argument, which is, if possible, even stupider.) (I do not recall David B ever using said argument, fortunately.)

Now, we turn to this comment:
the main reason I see the calendar as NOT part of tradition and NOT reason for schism is that it was simply the civil (and pagan!) calendar of Julian's day...

That sounds an awful lot like "the main reason I see the question of Presbyterian infant baptism as NOT part of the essentials and NOT reason for schism is that it is simply the outworking of Presby covenant theology and has nothing to do with the question of the Gospel", doesn't it?  Yet do we Sola Scripturists ever get a pass from our Sola Ecclesia friends when we say that?  Nope.
So when we see "The Orthodox Church is internally divided over the issue of the Church calendar. A minority of Orthodox churches worldwide, beginning in 1923, decided to follow the so-called 'New' (Gregorian) Calendar." (Source), I don't see a good reason not to doubt this kind of "we have unity, and you don't, so haha" argument.  David B's church is in the minority.

He or other EOx might respond:
But we are in communion with most of the Old Calendarists who aren't schismatics!

I'm a Reformed Baptist, and I'm in communion with all sortsa people - Presbyterians, not-Reformed Baptists, Assemblies of God, charismatics, Pentecostals...


But y'all don't go to the same church!

Neither do y'all.
And you don't earn any points for fudging on the definition of "denomination" either.  Your not-denomination denominations, in which you disagree with each other about certain things, are the same situation as the one in which I find myself today among Sola Scripturists.


But we have the same name!

No, you don't.  ROCOR, Russian Orthodox, OCA, GOA...


Those are just ethnic divisions for convenience' sake!

1) Then why do some of you differ on, for example, the calendar?
2) So it's better that y'all hold to the same doctrine and just squabble amongst yourselves like you do on the basis of racial dislikes?  Nice.


But you're not in communion at all with other Protestants!

You mean so-called Protestants?  Those with whom I'm not in communion have excommunicated themselves by denying the Gospel or another essential of the faith.
And you're not in communion with other Orthodox.


You mean so-called Orthodox?

Yep, that's precisely what I mean.  Why do you get to play the "they've schismed" game while I don't?  Where's your consistency?
It would appear that this is a case of "they're in communion with us unless they're not".  I shouldn't have to remind anyone that this is a tautology, and yet that is what's behind any appeal to this "unity" argument.


But we have a way to tell which tradition is right!

So do we - the Scripture.  Which doesn't keep writing itself with every new church pronouncement, BTW.  And which is far less question-begging.

Having said all that, one has to ask how David B knows that OCA is part of The True Orthodox Church, whereas those who've kept to the ostensibly older tradition of the Old Calendar aren't the ones holding firm in the face of innovation, a new calendar, ecumenism, getting all liberal-soft on baby murder, but by God making sure that everyone knows that the EOC is really serious about being green.  Nnnoooo, none of that is suspicious!
You know, for a while it sure seemed like the Arians were going to win the struggle in the 4th century, and anathemas had been flung about.  If David B had been alive that day, how would he know that the party of Athanasius was correct?  Appeal to "the Fathers"?  Each side had their own "Fathers".  Besides, a mere individual man like David doesn't get to define who is a Father and who isn't.  And since the typical Sola Ecclesia interp of Matthew 16:18 tells us that the church will never go largely down into heresy, the only way to be sure would be to wait and see who'd win the struggle.
How is that helpful for the believer at the time whose very soul is at stake?
How is that a good guide for the believer who wants to further the cause of good and of God?  How can he know where to direct his efforts?
Easy - he can't know, b/c individual interpretation of the Scripture is not available to him, and Apostolic Tradition hasn't been defined yet, and can't be by any one man.

DavidW on Gnosticism and Calvinism

I've been interacting some on DavidW's blogpost about his comparisons of Gnostic predestination and Calvinistic predestination.  He swears up and down that Calvinism is dressed-up Gnosticism, and I already corrected him on his point, told him:

My response is basically that you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Alot of EOC doctrines resemble Mormonism; that doesn't mean they're related. Looking at it the other way, all the ancient heretics held to doctrines that EOC would accept as well - that's what makes heretics so dangerous. They creep in, sound the same in almost everything, but secretly introduce destructive heresies, subtly, drawing away disciples after them. So this point of yours in principle proves too much. Otherwise stated, it proves nothing. 

 DavidW today laid out 5 questions on this topic he'd like me to address.  Let's see how well he did.

David,
1) No, it's not a tu quoque. I don't grant that Calvinistic predest is of Gnostic derivation, remember? Rather, I derive Calv predest from Scr, which preceded Gnosticism. So, that's wrong.

2a) "early church writer" means "someone in the early church who wrote". Nothing more or less.
The entire reason I use that term is to point out your question-begging distinction between "Church Fathers" and "heretics". You test everythg by the church; well, what if those whom you now identify as heretics had won the struggle? Then the men you now identify as CFs would be heretics, to you.
This is the problem with the Sola Ecclesia position; the only way you can judge the heretics of old to have been wrong is b/c the modern church is the group that won out, that won the power struggle. Not so for me - I can and must judge anyone and everyone and their teaching by the Word of God, which does not change.

2b) at least one early Church Father who believed in predestination

I've given you three many times - Jesus, Peter, Paul.
This business about early church writers and the dissent that existed between them is an internal critique of the EO position. It doesn't have any bearing on Sola Scriptura.

3) I've identified your arguments as committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (and am still waiting for a rebuttal). I can demonstrate that my doctrines are drawn from Scriptural exegesis. The ball's in your court.
You said:
If the Gnostic doctrine is not the same as the Calvinist doctrine, surely you should be able to explain how they are different.

Gosh, let's see. Oh, I know - one's Trinitarian and Christian, the other isn't. One's drawn from Scriptural exegesis, the other isn't.
From your own post:
their own selves (who are saved by nature)

Nope, saved by the grace of God. Fail #1.


Faith, then, is no longer the direct result of free choice, if it is a natural advantage.

Define "direct", "result", "free", and "choice".
Besides, Calvinism teaches that the regenerate man DOES freely choose - he chooses God b/c his nature has been changed and he's been given a new heart. Before that, he always freely chooses death and sin, b/c his nature is dead in sin and he hates God, his Enemy.
Fail #2.


Ye are originally immortal

Yet Calvinism teaches we are born dead in sin, and w/o God's intervention we will go to Hell forever.
Fail #3.


he also, similarly with Basilides, supposes a class saved by nature

It's so funny how you want to equate the Trinitarian God of the Bible with the Gnostic "nature". Why would you do that?
Fail #4.


In this way also they make a twofold distinction among souls, as to their property of good and evil

And yet the Bible teaches, and Calvinism of course affirms, that "there is no one good, no, not one." Fail #5.
(BTW, why are you citing the heretic Tertullian?)


For this reason it is that they neither regard works as necessary for themselves, nor do they observe any of the calls of duty, eluding even the necessity of martyrdom on any pretence which may suit their pleasure.

1) Calvinism teaches that God works thru means. Fail #6.
2) Calvinism teaches that man is responsible and called to "be holy as your Father in Heaven is holy". I am obligated to follow the entire law of God. Fail #7.


a rigidly deterministic scheme

Perhaps you're confusing Calvinism with HyperCalvinism? I'm pretty sure you've been corrected on that before, but you seem not to be a big fan of taking correction. Fail #8.
Now that, friends, is a lot of fail.


4) Irenaeus says They have also other modes of honouring these images... Seems like he's not a big fan of ANY honoring of images. I can certainly see where he's coming from - why not honor Christ? If you say "we already do", are you denying you could do so more? Or have you honored Him enough already? Let someone else get their snout in the trough, as it were.

Irony in Patristics

I haven't read a ton of patristic writing, I freely admit.  About 200+ pages starting from page 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and taking notes the whole way, so far.
But I can apply logical argumentation to common Eastern Orthodox argumentation in regard to the way they view patristic support for their position, and thus perform an internal critique of Eastern Orthodoxy.  Now, given that the Scriptures are the way they indeed are, it makes very little difference to me whether the entirety of those who identify themselves as "The Church®" over the course of history stand in opposition to what the Scripture teaches - "Let God be true and every man a liar." 

But of course, anyone who's familiar with patristic writings to a more than surface-level extent will know that the early church situation is not nearly that simple.  The questions of who was in schism from whom, who agreed with whom, who contradicted whom, who contradicted himself, who properly represented the actual position of most of the people in the church at his time, etc, are fundamental questions, and far too often our EO and RC friends simply assume that they are unimportant, assume that their church is The One True Church® and thus the default position, and any dissenter from such necessarily has all the burden of proof to defend his dissent. 
Let's take a look, for a case study, at DavidW's blog in which he likens Calvinism to Gnosticism.  I dropped by and dropped an Irenaeus quote from Jason Engwer:

"They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Against Heresies, 1:25:6) It seems likely that Irenaeus was part of the ante-Nicene consensus against the veneration of images. (source)

DavidW has responded, I replied, and DavidW once more.  I encourage you to read what he said, and here I relate my own rebuttal.

approach Orthodoxy on its own terms, free of such confutation.

Do you venerate images?  Bow down to them? 
What substantial differences can you name between EO practice and RC practice, besides that they use statues and you don't?

the book explores the supposedly iconoclastic references that Protestants cherry-pick from the Church Fathers

The existence of which is evidence in support of my position.  I don't think the early church writers had a consistent consensual position, remember?  I judge ALL THINGS by Scripture.

it's a case of looking at the Fathers on their own terms and in their fulness, as you are unwilling to do.

Hahaha, that makes me laugh, that you who ignore early church writers who dissent want to "look at the Fathers on their own terms".  Whatever, man.

3. How do they know Epiphanius' letter is a forgery?
Answers.

The very existence of ppl who'd like to forge such a letter shows that there did exist such an iconoclastic strain of tradition.  Which, again, is my position.

The iconoclasts of the 8th century picked up their iconoclasm from the Muslims.

Even Muslims get stuff right, you know.  I sorta picked mine up from the OT Jews.

You ASSERT that Tertullian doesn't represent early opinion. Prove it.
Professor Jeffrey Macdonald, a professor of early Christian history

OK, I listened to it, thank you. 
Macdonald:  "He's not technically a Church Father" - begging the very question at hand.  Who decided that?  Why isn't whoever decided that himself in schism, himself unreliable with respect to what is authoritative and normative in church history?
"He wrote a lot" - yup.  And yet you judge him wrong on many counts.  How is that any diff than what I do with what you claim about CFs that you DO agree with?  Why do you get to disagree with an early church writer and I don't?
"He did not remain in the Orthodox Church" - so he schismed?  So he was Protestant before there were Protestants? 
"Gnostics wanted Christians to live under extra rules" - that's very interesting. You mean like necessitating works like baptism on top of faith for salvation from sin?
"most of the CFs tried to work thru Greek philosophy, that meant to Tatian's crew that they were apostatising" - doesn't sound like there's a ton of unity and agreement in the early church, now was there?  There sure seems to be a big diff in the way you EOx talk to Protestants and the way you talk to each other.  Kinda like how Yasser Arafat would say "Peace, peace" in English to the Western goober politicians, then go say "War, war" in Arabic to his own ppl (though obviously less violently).
"Tertullian is not reflecting the reality of early Christianity, he's reflecting a particular position" - What a dumb thing to say!  Of COURSE he was reflecting a particular position.  EVERY writer "reflects a particular position".  Sheesh.

Now, around minute 48-49, Macdonald has a very interesting extended quotation:

"The church has a tradition that the married women did this, and the girls, I guess, they didn't wear veils.  So he makes the statement:  'Whatever favors the opposition to truth is heresy, even if it's ancient custom'.  And he says that in a number of places where he's contrasting the tradition of the church, he rejects the tradition of the church, in favor of the prophecies of the women.  And it stuck in my mind b/c Cyprian, who comes after him in Carthage, makes almost the same statements; for Cyprian, to him he's not a Montanist, but he always refers, Tertullian for him is the only church father b/c he wrote in Latin, and he refers to Tertullian as 'a master', but he makes that statement in regard to the rebaptism, b/c the church was not rebaptising people from heretical groups but was receiving them by chrismation and Cyprian says 'well, ancient custom is just ancient error', you know, so it's this ultimately, the church disagreed with Cyprian on that and have the canons and everything, but this attitude of rejection of the church tradition.  And we will say that OK, not everything that every early Christian ever did is necessarily Gospel, but the consensus of the church and the tradition of the church's practice is part of what Irenaeus is referring to, when he says 'What's to separate us from the Gnostics, who make up their errors?  Each Gnostic is just making stuff up.  That our teachings go back and are continuous back to Christ' and that's what distinguishes the church from a heretical group.  For Tertullian and later Cyprian, they both say 'no, that the church's practice is no indication of what is true,' particularly Tertullian.  And of course, he's coming at it from the idea that these Montanist teachers were in fact revelations of the Holy Spirit."

There is a lot to catch there, but notice how Macdonald says Saint Cyprian treated Tertullian, a guy who was headed to heresy according to the EOC.
Notice how Macdonald even characterises Cyprian's view that Tertullian was the only church father.
Notice how these two early witnesses seem to be treating "church tradition" just like I do - easily prone to error, and in the case of the doctrine under dispute, just a mistaken tradition that got accepted by enough people, handed down enough, and eventually crystallised into unshakable "Sacred Tradition".  And yet these two men disparage it as merely "ancient error".  So what is the EO antidote to this problem?  More appeals to more so-called Sacred Tradition?  As if that's not the very problem at hand?  Why not appeal to what God has said?  Oh no, they've got more important things!  Like preserving their Sola Ecclesia presuppositions, their pet authority. 

Questioner - "It's not like he did a flipflop." 

"That's not surprising.  Alot of his writings, when he's writing against the church he's also contradicting his own early writings, when he was in the church...Tertullian sort of took exception with the decision of the Roman church and ultimately decided, even in his pre-Montanist writings, you start seeing, not the earliest ones, but the period about 204 on, he starts adopting Montanist ideas and then 207 he leaves..."

So...Tertullian takes exception to what a bishop (the one in Rome) defined.  And yet 1800 years later, the Reformed are roundly criticised for following his example.  (Macdonald clarifies that this dissent by Tertullian took place in 197, BTW.)
And I have said in the past that a strong case can be made that church fathers contradict themselves in their own writings over the course of time.  Of course, I catch flak for that kind of statement from RCs and EOdox, but I bet Macdonald won't catch any.  Oh no, b/c he's one of the boys. 

DavidW continues:

Historians don't have polling data; we work with what we have

And then you assume that's what the early church believed.  So you DON'T have any polling data, yet you take ~50 writers who wrote variegated things on a wide variety of topics with some disagreement between them and frequent disagreement between writings from any one of them over the course of his life, and from THAT you decide what the early church believed?  No, you decide after the fact. That's always been my point.  You, the modern EOC, decide which views out of the sparse info that you have from the past you're going to follow.  Sola Ecclesia.
Pardon me, but I don't want to follow such circular self-referential reasoning, such begging of the very question at hand.  I follow what God has most surely said - the Scripture. 

Okay: I say that aliens came to earth, enslaved all people, and set up a kingdom that was only finally overthrown in the 6th century by St. Justinian the Emperor. It's okay, though, lack of documentary evidence doesn't mean it's not true

You're exactly right - that doesn't mean it's not true.  ANYthing could conceivably be true; that's the problem of induction at work (since you mentioned logic).  You have faith on the modern EOC's interp of archaeology and historical data, despite when we show you that your view of history is flawed. You are a humanist at the core.  I have faith in God's Holy Word. 

Right -- he was a heretic. He did become a Montanist, you know?

Yes, I know that, and you're begging the question to claim that joining a Montanist sect means that he was necessarily wrong or out of step with the church.  Prove that most ppl weren't in fact part of the Montanists.  Polling data. 

Irenaeus is not talking about my position because my position is the same as Irenaeus' and I sincerely doubt that Irenaeus is calling his own position Gnostic.

Wow.  That was a naked assertion of epic proportion.  How about you actually deal with what he said?

Where Did the Term "Sola Ecclesia" Come From?

You were all shocked when the truth was revealed that Al Gore invented the Internet. Now, the inventor of the phrase "Sola Ecclesia" steps forth:

RCC Credibility Test

From the Catholic News Service:

"A newly beatified nun from the Holy Land could serve as an inspiration for Christians who remain there, said the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem.

The Nov. 22 beatification "breathes upon us a new spirit, renews our church and invites us to the happy hope that we ourselves, too, can be saints like her," said Latin Patriarch Fouad Twal, referring to Blessed Soultaneh Maria Ghattas, founder of the Dominican Sisters of the Holy Rosary of Jerusalem.

"What the church needs most is the witness of saints," he added in his homily at the beatification, a major step toward sainthood. "Holiness is the sign of the church's credibility.""

Unfortunately, that type of credibility test cuts both ways. Certainly unholy behavior, like clerical pedophilia, would be considered a bad "sign".

Circles and more circles

Stacey was kind enough to actually interact with my recent post on the inconsistency of the RCC. That's much appreciated, b/c prior to her there wasn't much meaningful action.

Hi Stacey,

Sorry for the delay. I've been bogged down in engagements with Darwinians elsewhere.

Tertullian said:
1 Corinthians 8:2 When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected

Yes, and then the Corinthians were corrected, again, in 2 Corinthians.
The Thessalonians were corrected about the very same issues a 2nd time in 2 Thessalonians.
Plus, isn't it true that these epistles were sent AFTER Paul had spent varying amounts of time preaching and teaching in that church? Paul was in Rome a while. He was in Ephesus for 18 months! Yet they ended up getting it wrong after a while, and so he sent a corrective epistle. And Tertullian would have us believe that, after 18 months of preaching, a 6-chapter epistle would definitely be enough to fix it all up? How often does that happen in RCC, after people receive an infallible proclamation? Sure, some, even many, follow it faithfully...for a while. What about their kids and grandkids and great grandkids? How holy is the populace of Avignon these days? How about of Rome?
Further, isn't it RCC's contention that oral tradition is what is missing out of the Sola Scriptura position, that Sola Scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy without the guiding power of the RCC's oral tradition? And here Stacey quotes Tertullian to the effect that an epistolary correction should suffice to clean up these errant churches, eh? Very, very interesting.


Tertullian said:
which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution.

Well, most of them don't today. Is there an unbroken line of succession of bishops from the time of the apostles in the church in Ephesus? *IS* there a church in Ephesus today? Does anyone even live in Ephesus today? Philippi? Colossæ? Laodicæa?


Stacey said:
"the final authority is the Church" would be a vital part of living Tradition.

No, it's the governing authority of Tradition. That which defines what is and isn't Sacred Tradition® is not part of it at all; it sits in judgment OVER it. Let's not equivocate on terms here.

You ask about the Theodoret quote. Point is, he's an early church writer. He's part of little-t tradition, from the 5th century. He's teaching Particular Redemption/Limited Atonement, a Calvinist distinctive doctrine. It is not (unless I'm mistaken) a view that is possible to hold and be in good standing with RCC, today. So this quote doesn't make it into Sacred Tradition® b/c it conflicts with MODERN RCC teaching.


Stacey said:
I have also referred to the Catholic understanding of faith, and justification by faith alone is true if you mean faith that bears fruit in love

I'm sorry Stacey, but this is not the modern RC view (unless you want to count the touchy-feely liberal crowd who don't "judge" anyone). Justification by grace alone thru faith alone is not a view that is compatible with the doctrines of the treasury of merit, penance, and Purgatory, to say nothing of baptismal regeneration.

Even later in your comment, you said:
In fact, Scripture teaches "not by faith alone" in James 2:24.

So... which is it?


There is reason to believe that when James said "faith", he meant "belief" and when Paul said "faith" he meant "obedience to the will of God".

So when Paul said "faith", he meant "that which makes grace no longer grace" (cf Romans 11:6)? Interesting.
Let me help you decode - maybe you could tell us all why "faith" suddenly means "works" now.



Stacey said:
But when the living Church of Christ is your guide, it's not as big a deal if people disagreed about such a thing, particularly before the Church held council to resolve the dispute

This is precisely the point! You appeal to the RCC for EVERYthing, but the RCC can't back up its claims. Why is Athanasius' canon not part of Sacred Tradition®? B/c RCC at a more modern time said so. So it proves my point every time it does so.


We cannot ignore the arrow of time, and once the Church has resolved the issue, then there should be no dispute in Tradition.

Yes, simply by removing the parts that don't fit your view. This is eisegesis with history. We Reformed, OTOH, let the CFs be who they are. We don't cut anything out of what they said. We understand that they were non-inspired writers, whose views have their proper weight but no more. RCC appeals to them, leans on them for her authority that she exercises in modern times, and one way RCC exercises her authority is to cut out writings and pick and choose writings from these very CFs to whom they appeal to justify their authority. It's viciously circular.


I think the issue of which books are included in the Old Testament canon is relatively insignificant to issues like "Is Christ present in the Eucharist?" and "Is baptism necessary for salvation?"

No offense intended , Stacey, but who cares what you think about this issue's relative importance? You really don't think that being in the dark about what is God's revelation is a minor issue?


No, indeed the Church does not include every word written by these men as the written Tradition. There is no written Tradition.

1) No written Tradition? None? So why does RCC quote CFs when it appeals to them for her authority?
2) Isn't this exactly the same as the admission that RCC is the final judge of what is and isn't true teaching, regardless of whether early Christians believed it or not? How is that not viciously circular?


The Tradition that Catholics speak of is not the writings of the Church Fathers, it is that to which the writings testify.

This is a pious cloud of nothing, I am sorry. How else do we know that to which they testify if there is no written Tradition?
Oh wait, let me guess - The Church® told you so.


I saw this on your blog earlier.

Yep, I thought it was fine as it stood and so copied and pasted! :-) James S told me I could do that back when he hired me (though I suspect that, as he recently doubled my stipend, I should probably step it up and produce all-original work from now on).


A submissive spirit to those He has put in authority over us, or a desire to exert our own will and understanding over those same people who are in authority over us?

This simply begs the question of who is in proper authority. Heb 13:17 - my elders are in authority over me. I am a member of a church. But I do appreciate your concern.
Yet you are relying on the authority of an organisation that appeals to herself to pick and choose which writings out of its alleged early members accord well enough with its current teaching to admit into one of the foundations of the authority by which it binds that authority on your conscience. Where did Scripture go? It suffers the same fate at RCC's hands as do the writings of the CFs - picked over, gleaned, the rest left to rot in the sun.

Inconsistency considered

I was recently asked what amounts to: "When did Church Tradition go wrong?"

There are so many places in which the tradition to which RCC subscribes went wrong that it's impossible to place some collective When. There are also places where they still have it right - Trinity, Christology (kinda), Bible as God's Word (or, some RCs), etc.
So we would have to ask which doctrine in particular. And even then it's nearly impossible.
I invite you to consider three things:

1) How many churches in the NT already had it wrong? Even after apostolic teaching and even correction? Corinth, Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, Colossæ, Thessalonica, Crete, the church to which 1 John is addressed, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Laodicæa. And these are in the lifetime of the apostles!
And of course, the OT provides a paradigm for history as well - how much time did OT Israel spend in fairly-close obedience to God's Word? Very little. Yet God always preserved a remnant, which had the upper hand in numbers and influence sometimes but infrequently.
2) RCC picks and chooses which parts of CF writings it will follow and which it won't. The final authority is the Church. ECF writer X will say this or that and RCC will say "well, he's just speaking as a private theologian here", but if he says something else in the same document, alluvasudden he's a reliable witness to the universal and ancient church's constant tradition. Why should anyone put any credence in an approach such as that?
3) This is a subset of #2.

Consider:
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) Hebrews 9:27-28: "As it is appointed for each human being to die once, and the one who accepts death’s decree no longer sins but awaits the examination of what was done in life, so Christ the Lord, after being offered once for us and taking up our sins, will come to us again, with sin no longer in force, that is, with sin no longer occupying a place as far as human beings are concerned. He said himself, remember, when he still had a mortal body, “He committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth.” It should be noted, of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only." [Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 175.


Or:
1st Epistle of Clement of Rome:

From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven." All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men. Amen


Or:
There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)


Let's just say for the sake of argument that Rome is right - Ath taught in more than one *other* place the opposite doctrine to what I've presented here. (And this happens all the time with all sorts of CFs.)
That leaves us w/ CFs who have contradicted themselves. To be consistent w/ these Ch Fathers (and remember, my claim is that modern RCC is inconsistent w/ them), RCC would either have to:
A: Teach just as inconsistently as these two guys do, sometimes saying one thing, sometimes the other, or
B: Call these teachings not actually part of Divine Tradition.

The problem w/ resolution A is that the cognitive dissonance would be pretty much unbearable. The upshot is that I don't know if I'd expect a lot of people to turn away from RCC in real life.
The thing about resolution B is that they have indeed already done just that. Somehow these two godly, forcible, powerful writers, from whom RCC ostensibly derives much of its tradition and doctrine, also produced impious, ungodly, and flat wrong teachings.

Now, how would the RC know this? Apparently from judging these non-"Apostolic Traditions" by... yup, you guessed it! What The Church® Says.
In the end, it's a vicious circle of question-begging. I claim the modern RCC is not totally faithful w/ Ch Fathers and then cite them when challenged. Then they say, "Hey, those aren't part of Apostolic Tradition!" I say, "Thanks for proving my point."
Note how this is the exact same thing they do with Scripture. Sola Ecclesia.
I also pause to note how pernicious this is. The Lord Jesus set an authoritative example for how one is to judge tradition - by Scripture. The RC refuses to do that and instead appeals to his own doctrinal construct which is already in place to then look BACK on tradition AND Scripture and pick and choose what he'll believe and what he won't believe. Thus the RC holds to the Scriptural teaching of the Deity of Christ and rejects the Scriptural teaching of salvation by grace alone thru faith alone. He accepts the Trinity and rejects sola scriptura. He accepts the fact that we should pray to God as commanded in the Scripture and rejects the fact that prayer to dead people and angels is strictly prohibited in the Scripture.
It becomes easy to see how this not only dishonors God in ideal (that is, that we should not judge men's teachings by God's) but also later in practice (bowing down to images, praying to dead people, trying to earn merit towards one's salvation).

Sola Ecclesia Quote

"What then must the Catholic Christian generally believe?

He must believe all that God has revealed and the Catholic Church proposes to his belief, whether it be contained in Holy Scripture or not."

"Is the Infallibility of the Pope the same as the Infallibility of the Church?

Yes, precisely. The Pope is the Supreme Pastor and Teacher, whose voice all the faithful, clergy and laity, 'lambs and sheep,' are commanded by Christ to hear and to follow. If he could teach error ex cathedra, the Church would then follow him into error, and would thereby fail; and so the promises of Christ would be falsified, which is impossible."

"Application: In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly submit to the decisions of Holy Church; for when you believe what the Church teaches, you believe the Word of God."

-A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion

"Sola Ecclesia"

Since the use of the term “sola ecclesia” is being questioned in the previous post, I thought I would try to briefly clarify (since Rhology is on hiatus).

In regards to the rule of faith, "Sola Ecclesia = Church Alone" as "Sola Scriptura = Scripture Alone".

From the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading “THE CHURCH AS THE RULE OF FAITH”:

This follows necessarily from any adequate view of the Church as a Divinely constituted body, to whose keeping is entrusted the deposit of faith, but the grounds for this doctrine may be briefly stated as follows…If faith is necessary for all men at all times and in all places, and if a true saving faith demands a clear knowledge of what we have to believe, it is clear that an infallible teaching Church is an absolute necessity. Such a Church alone can speak to men of all classes and at all times; it alone can, by reason of its perpetuity and ageless character, meet every new difficulty by a declaration of the sound form of doctrine which is to be held. If the teaching of Christ and His Apostles is distorted, none but the Church can say "This is its true meaning, and not that; I know that it is as I say because the Spirit which assists me is One with the Spirit which rested on Him and on them"; the Church alone can say, "Christ truly rose from the tomb, and I know it, because I was there, and saw the stone rolled back". The Church alone can tell us how we are to interpret the words "This is My Body", for she alone can say, He Who spoke those words speaks through me, He promised to be with me all days, He pledged Himself to safeguard me from error at all times".

Sola Scriptura vs Sola Ecclesia blog debate

Though I'm on a short hiatus, I'm pulling a centuri0n and calling attention to the debate blog between TurretinFan and Orthodox, who frequently comments here. It's very interesting so far and I'd encourage you to take a look.