If the Catholic claims "tradition" the burden is in the cathokic to show a uniform agreement by the ECFs on the issues.
As illustrated the ECFs are not in agreement rendering the Catholic claim to tradition as as a source of truth null.
ealgeone:
If Scripture isn’t the source then you have to allow the Mormon their Book of Mormon and the Muslim their Koran.
RB:
Not so. That is your own assumption, inconsistent with all of Church history.
ealgeone:
If the Catholic claims “tradition” the burden is in the (sic) cathokic to show a uniform agreement by the ECFs on the issues.
RB:
The Church is free, guided by the Holy Ghost, to make declarations by its competent authorities. (You make declarations quite freely all on your own! Are you a competent authority of the Church?) The popes (barring the false popes after A.D.1958 to present - another discussion) have such authority, and by the way, there is physical apostolic succession in play here.
Such authoritative declarations can shed fresh light on doctrine but never nullifies prior declarations. The Church has always put very serious weight on the work of the Early Church Fathers. And note, Papal authority is higher even than historical documentation on any early church father.
ealgeone:
As illustrated the ECFs are not in agreement rendering the Catholic claim to tradition as as a source of truth null.
RB:
NOT illustrated. See my comment just above. The fact that ECF’s are not in perfect agreement illustrates the need for higher authority, which if you fail to acknowledge, is of no use to you.
I detect a sort of fatalism on your part, clinging to a thought that because ECF had some disagreement on something, then neither could be right.
It does not violate adherence to tradition when the Church finally authoritatively declares that a certain ECF was correct and the other incorrect. (They cannot both be correct in such cases, thus again, the need for higher authority, which God is capable of providing, no?)
ealgeone:
If Scripture isn’t the source then you have to allow the Mormon their Book of Mormon and the Muslim their Koran.
RB:
Not so. That is your own assumption, inconsistent with all of Church history.
ealgeone:
If the Catholic claims “tradition” the burden is in the (sic) cathokic to show a uniform agreement by the ECFs on the issues.
RB:
The Church is free, guided by the Holy Ghost, to make declarations by its competent authorities. (You make declarations quite freely all on your own! Are you a competent authority of the Church?) The popes (barring the false popes after A.D.1958 to present - another discussion) have such authority, and by the way, there is physical apostolic succession in play here.
Such authoritative declarations can shed fresh light on doctrine but never nullifies prior declarations. The Church has always put very serious weight on the work of the Early Church Fathers. And note, Papal authority is higher even than historical documentation on any early church father.
ealgeone:
As illustrated the ECFs are not in agreement rendering the Catholic claim to tradition as as a source of truth null.
RB:
NOT illustrated. See my comment just above. The fact that ECF’s are not in perfect agreement illustrates the need for higher authority, which if you fail to acknowledge, is of no use to you.
I detect a sort of fatalism on your part, clinging to a thought that because ECF had some disagreement on something, then neither could be right.
It does not violate adherence to tradition when the Church finally authoritatively declares that a certain ECF was correct and the other incorrect. (They cannot both be correct in such cases, thus again, the need for higher authority, which God is capable of providing, no?)