“Protestant teaching of sola scriptura”
I cannot understand how you can at the same time affirm scripture and decimate scripture. You cannot affirm what you tear away.
This is why I believe that scripture does not teach sola scripture, and why we never see any of the Church fathers use the term. Until Luther.
“yet the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that oral tradition is a second source of divine revelation, equally as authoritative as Scripture and that this was the view held by the church Fathers.”
This is true.
“When the Fathers speak of a tradition handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture, they are referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices, never to doctrine.”
Not so. Your quote from Iraneus refers to the fact that the Apostles had the teaching authority to preach the word, and that from these words, the bible was written. So clearly, Tradition came first, and did refer explicitly to doctrine, the bible itself could not be written.
“Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture.”
Iraneus readily accepted Scripture as approved by the Apostles, so clearly, Tradition wasn’t subordinate to Scripture. Had books come down to him that were not approved by the Apostles do you think they would have been considered Scripture? No.
This the problem.
‘Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture’
Which is why the Church teaches that Scripture and Tradition are equally authoritative. To argue that the Catholic church teaches that Scripture is subordinate is false.
To say that the Catholic church goes so far to say that Tradition ought to be independent of Scripture, is also false.
So let’s stop arguing against straw men. The Church teaches scripture and tradition.
Protestants argue a mutilated scripture to uphold a mutilated tradition.
>> To argue that the Catholic church teaches that Scripture is subordinate is false.<<
Then find Scriptural proof of the perpetual virginity of Mary, or praying through the dead.
I’m late to the argument, and haven’ had time to read all the posts yet. Has someone mentioned the fact that the Bible was not “officially” formed until 300-400 years after Christ? That alone defeats the Sola Scriptura argument - you can’t claim by Scripture alone when there was no official Scripture to follow. That’s why sacred tradition is hand-in-hand with the Word, with neither above the other. And if you read the Catholic Catechism, you’ll find that every aspect of Catholic doctrine has biblical support.