[Mad Dawg]

Annalex. I want to differ here. There is something else at stake here. Or something as well. I see Kolo and the Eo contributers saying that they have a kind of magisterium in the Consensus Patrium (if that's a phrase) and we look to the MAgisterium. We find things in which we rest, and from which our enquiries spring as from a firm base.

But when, as I mentioned earlier, the 16th century Anglicans and their successors say that Councils can err, what the Protestants are left with, and this is not to sneer or disparage, is simply throwing themselves on the Lord and His mercy. No reliable doctrine is between them and Him, and right belief can never be absolutely known or relied on, since if those pious people, met in the Name of the Lord and calling on His spirit, can err, how much more can we err? And how much more can those err who do not trust the Lord to keep them from error?

I think it comes down to an entirely different epistemology and approach to the tenets of the Faith.

Ecclesiology, considering the vaguely gnostic idea of the invisible Church, becomes fundamental in one's approach, if not to Jesus Himself, certainly to thinking about him.

We look to the promise of soundness in the Apostolic fellowship, and trust them to give us the trail markers and guide. If we question it's more, "Do I understand this?" They are asking, "Is this person right on this matter or not?"

Or so I guess.

[annalex]

We find things in which we rest, and from which our enquiries spring as from a firm base. [...] No reliable doctrine is between them and Him, and right belief can never be absolutely known or relied on

I don't see where we disagree.

[Quix]

vaguely gnostic idea of the invisible Church,
= = = =

I think this has been soundly refuted repeatedly.

Shall we bring up the old assertions about satanic influence over the Holy See? As far as I can tell, one has about as much validity as the other. Actually, the gnostic assault may have a lot less from some perspectives.