[what's up]

To the extent that you see an innovative teaching or practice, remember what The Church taught and believed in the late 4th century and then see if the new teaching or praxis passes muster with that standard, not what you think or the local Rev. said last Sunday

It is far superior to measure an innovative teaching or what the Rev. taught against Scripture instead.

We can use other sources to help us but even the early church fathers did not elevate their own sayings/writings/teachings to the level of scripture, obviously knowing the Canon of Scripture was superior and rightly termed the Word of God where the works of the early church fathers are not.

[Kolokotronis]

"It is far superior to measure an innovative teaching or what the Rev. taught against Scripture instead." It's not "instead", it's "both". Measuring it only against Scripture as a practical matter means only against one's own personal interpretation of Scripture. To me, and meaning no offense to my Latin brothers and sisters, that makes about as much sense to me as papal infallibility does. In any event, that's no standard at all, wu. This is why it is always safe to measure against what the canon was measured against, 4th century Holy Tradition of The Church. "even the early church fathers did not elevate their own sayings/writings/teachings to the level of scripture, obviously knowing the Canon of Scripture was superior and rightly termed the Word of God where the works of the early church fathers are not."

Indeed they did not. They were very careful to support their positions by reference to Scripture. And even they erred. This is why we speak of the "consensus patrum" as the standard against which we measure the orthodoxy of the teachings of individual Fathers.