Yet, you previously said:
I think you are conflating sola scriptura with the final authority of scripture - nothing contrary to scripture. If this is what you mean by sola scriptura then your belief is the same as the Church.
What you just defined in the above statement really IS the genuine meaning of sola Scriptura. Nobody argues that JUST the Bible is the only source of all truth or that no one can write about theological issues and explain Biblical truth. As St. Athanasius said, "the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth" (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3). He also said concerning those who professed to use Holy Scripture for their doctrines:
For not only in outward form did those wicked men dissemble, putting on as the Lord says sheep's clothing, and appearing like unto whited sepulchres; but they took those divine words in their mouth, while they inwardly cherished evil intentions. And the first to put on this appearance was the serpent, the inventor of wickedness from the beginning-the devil,-who, in disguise, conversed with Eve, and forthwith deceived her. But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians [1 Cor 11:2] , because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions. And the Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, saying, `Wherefore do ye also transgress the commandments of God on account of your traditions.' For they changed the commandments they received from God after their own understanding, preferring to observe the traditions of men. And about these, a little after, the blessed Paul again gave directions to the Galatians who were in danger thereof, writing to them, `If any man preach to you aught else than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Athanasius, Festal Letters, Easter, Letter 2. For 330)
My question, then would be, in light of the contention that the Roman Catholic Church, alone, is THE church Christ established and the above views of early church fathers, how could someone two thousand years later recognize this church? It HAS to be more than just what a church claims it is and the name it uses. What have the Apostles and Almighty God given to us so that we could know who is genuine and the buttress and support of the truth? How could anyone do that unless there was an OBJECTIVE source of the truth somewhere by which such truth claims could be measured?
Athanasius, a few hundred years removed from the Apostles, understood that it was the Scriptures which formed the basis of all doctrines. Even those canons and creeds that came later were based on Scripture, or started out that way, I should say. It wasn't until many years after that these creeds and canons started being given equal standing in authority with Scripture. Something I do not think Athanasius would have approved of. If ANY church today claims to be a genuine Christian church, it must STILL have to prove its statement of faith by Scripture for the genuine Christian to know it and trust it enough to worship there.
If you say that all doctrines of the church should not be "contrary" to Scripture which is the authority, then we have to ask if the church, any church, can prove their "interpretation" of Scripture? It puts the ball back in the court of not who claims to be the right interpreter but who proves it by scripture. That's just what Athanasius did in his disputes with the Arians - he made the better argument from Scripture. Did everyone get convinced and reject Arius? No. But those who respected the Scriptures ABOVE their leaders recognized the truth when they heard it and they WERE convinced.
Go to mass.