[daniel1212]

A circular argument. Your appeal to purported Scriptura Sola is in vain, for it is not supported by Apostolic Tradition.

Wrong and absurd. That which is wholly-inspired of God is the authority to which the apostles invoked as validation, and is the only substantive body of Truth they affirmed as being wholly inspired of God, which was established as such before there was a church of Rome. And thus your claim for "Apostolic Tradition" must itself be subject to Scripture.

(Sola Scriptura isn't even supported by Scripture.)

That is not necessary here, as Scripture Prima would suffice, but SS is certainly supported, as Scripture alone being the standard for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced, as the only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth, and sufficient in its formal and material senses combined, and with writing being God's means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:27;Deuteronomy 10:4; 27:3; 31:24; Isaiah 30:8; John 20:31; Revelation 20:12,15) Thus the church was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus Rome's the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.

Out of the 1st-2nd century book-bazaar of purported scriptural books written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, you wouldn't even know how to pick out the 27 books of the NT were it not for Apostolic Tradition and, of course, the "custom of the Church". Apostolic Tradition is the source of the NT canon.

Wrong. Common souls discerned both writings and men of God as being so before there was a church of Rome. But therefore based upon your reasoning then Jewish Tradition is equal to Scripture, with the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture being the sure authority on what Scripture means. Thus they were to be followed rather than itinerant preachrers of the sect of the Nazarenes, who established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation.

The way God worked was to first reveal Himself and Word in a very limited but profound manner to a very limited amount of people. But when deciding to reveal Himself to a nation corporately, He gave the Law in writing (Gn.-Dt.) by a most manifest man of God. Which body, besides direct communication in wholly inspired writing, placed in writing what was of God that was passed on orally, in effect sifting out the chaff from the oral stream, and placing it in a wholly inspired preserved form. And which preserved written body became the manifest standard for obedience and testing Truth claims. It was not the hearing or oral tradition that caused the king to rent his clothes, and heart, and caused a revival.

And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses... And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes....because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book (2 Chronicles 34:14,19,21b)(I should have such a heart.)

To which body more wholly inspired words were added, some directly into writing, and others preserving what tradition was of God, but recording it (and sometime even expanding or recasting what was said verbatim, as seen by duplicate accounts) as wholly inspired of God, thus in totality being a superior form. Thus we are assured what parts of oral tradition (in which form both wheat and chaff grew together) were of God (such as perhaps the name of Jannes and Jambres: 2Tim. 3:8) by their inclusion in wholly inspired written preservation.

And which writings (as with men of God) were recognized and established as being of God essentially due to their unique and enduring qualities and attestation, with, as with men of God, this being more readily apparent with some than with others.

And thus it was not Jewish oral tradition that the Lord rebuked the devil and leaders by, and established His Truth claims, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

For Catholic oral tradition to be equal with Scripture then what they say would have to be wholly inspired of God, and even then it would be subject to testing by the established wholly inspired body of Truth, the Scriptures.

Instead of Scripture even having its primary supreme status however, neither it nor her claimed "Apostolic Tradition" is the supreme authority and basis of assurance of Truth. For instead it is Rome herself, who claims one cannot assuredly ascertain what Scripture consists of and means except by her, as the historical steward of Divine revelation, which is contrary to how the church began.

But since Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

It's like that Old Time Religion. Good enough for Athanasius, good enough for Jerome, good enough for the "custom of the Church", good enough for me.

Really? Then you should agree with Athanasius and Jerome who rejected apocryphal books that Rome later decreed were indisputably part of the canon.

The Catholic Encyclopedia had therefore apologetically stated,

Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome. Athanasius of Alexandria was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

[Elsie]

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply.

These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the conspiracy or  coverup. 

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.  Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor,  etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen,  and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.  Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus  on side issues which can be used show the topic  as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the  'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers.  Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's  argument which you can easily knock down to make  yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges.  Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.  This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger'  ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',  'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics',  'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others  shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet  and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal  agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent  is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.  Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution.  Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.  This requires creative thinking unless the crime  was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.  If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys  listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can  'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule.  Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant  and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other  empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable  events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid  the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

How to spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

 

 

[Mrs. Don-o]

You're strenuously refuting something I didn't say. I wrote:

"You wouldn't even know how to pick out the 27 books of the NT were it not for Apostolic Tradition and, of course, the "custom of the Church". Apostolic Tradition is the source of the NT canon."

You responded:

"Wrong. Common souls discerned both writings and men of God as being so before there was a church of Rome.">

I didn't say a word about the "Church of Rome," and using such a term is tendentious on your part, since I have never belonged to, or defended an entity called the "Church of Rome". Perhaps you mean the "Diocese of Rome." Goodness knows what you mean.

Those "common souls" you refer to were living the Gospel before the Gospels were even written, before there was a NT "Scriptura," and before Peter and Paul ever got to Rome.

I don't think you *mean* to distort what I said, but actually, the "common souls" you refer to, are the body of the Church considered as a whole: the Church Cata Holos.

Which existed before Rome and before the written Gospels.

I mentioned St. Jerome in my last volley because he referred to the Church "cata-holos," NOT to the Pope, when he finally decided to include the disputed 7-book Deuterocanonicals in his translation of the OT, despite his scholarly opinion to the contrary.

He didn't rely on his scholarly opinion.

He didn't get orders from the Pope.

As he said in his reply to Rufinius --- "What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?".

So he estab;ished the criterion by which the canon would be settled: not his own judgment; nor some scholarly consensus; nor "orders from the Pope"; nor the judgment of Jews: but rather, the judgment of the Church.

He acknowledged the books that were actually in liturgical use in the churches,