What I can't seem to communicate to you effectively is that scripture alone has no authority. It cannot be put on the stand and say Zwingli is right, Luther wrong on what John 6 means... or the reverse. It cannot be deposed directly on the question of Luther is correct, according to itself, on what the Sacraments are and the Church wrong.
So when you say "the authority of scripture," it necessarily always follows "scripture according to whom?"
Nor can I seem to communicate the intertwining of scripture and tradition. But I'll try again.
Take this portion:
Apostolic traditions (that is, doctrinal truths from the Apostles themselves) passed down orally in the Church through her Tradition that are different from that which was inscripturated,
What qualifies under this category depends entirely on what you believe is inscripturated. Is the Real Presence inscripturated? If you say no, then it is tradition; because it is deemed not inscripturated and is definitely "binding on the Christian conscience as an additional rule of faith."
The same for all other dogma and doctrine, liturgy and praxis of the orthodox faith.
Thanks very much for your reply.
I have at least provided answers to your interrogatories. You may not like the answers, but there are a couple of mine you have not even attempted to answer:
1. Was the entirety of the apostolic message preserved in Scripture alone or not?
2. Can you can explain to me why someone in a position of authority fairly early in the history of the Church such as Cyril, a BISHOP, no less, could tell his catechumens that if he were to present any teaching which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it?
What I can't seem to communicate to you effectively is that scripture alone has no authority. It cannot be put on the stand and say Zwingli is right, Luther wrong on what John 6 means... or the reverse. It cannot be deposed directly on the question of Luther is correct, according to itself, on what the Sacraments are and the Church wrong.
So when you say "the authority of scripture," it necessarily always follows "scripture according to whom?"
To say that scripture alone has no authority because you can't put it on the witness or depose it directly and make it testify is really just another way of saying the command of God has no authority by itself. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
The authority of the Scripture is intrinsic because of it's nature as God-Breathed Revelation. The Scripture is not in need of any supplement. It's authority is not dependent upon the testimony of any witness, Church or council. "Have you not read what God said to you?"
What qualifies under this category depends entirely on what you believe is inscripturated. Is the Real Presence inscripturated? If you say no, then it is tradition; because it is deemed not inscripturated and is definitely "binding on the Christian conscience as an additional rule of faith."
Begging the question, assuming that which must be proved. It is an entirely circular argument as to what is binding on the Christian conscience as an additional rule of faith.
Cordially,