[daniel1212]

" Well then I guess you don’t see the flaw in your argument. You start off with your wrong assumptions about the NT Church. But the Fathers say otherwise. So “Aha!” you say, “clearly the Fathers departed from the NT Church!” Instead of realizing that there was no departure whatsoever, your initial assumptions were just wrong from the get-go. "

Rather, as clearly explained to you, the flaw is in your argument that the (selective) uninspired writings of post apostolic so-called church fathers are definitive of what the NT church believes, versus the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed in which distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest. Thus, like as Jewish traditions that later developed which are not Scriptural, the record of such among certain post apostolic uninspired writings that are not what we see the NT church in Scripture - most specifically in Acts thru Revelation - believing, testifies to the progressive accretion of such. As does substantial historical research, including that of papal power.

[Luircin]

Pretty funny how Claud insists that the church fathers contradict themselves when dealing with me and then insists they’re inerrant when dealing with you.

Or he thinks that when they mean “faith alone” they don’t REALLY mean “faith alone.”

Hilarious.