First of all, using the words solo ecclesia is very vague and I understand that you use it so that you can build up your web of straw arguments and spin about the Catholic Church in which circular arguments can be used between your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture and your PERSONAL interpretation of Holy Tradition and the Magisterium.
Instead of using the term solo ecclesia ,I suggest you understand what is said in Dei Verbum in understanding the 3 legged stool of the Catholic Faith
Excerpts..
9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)
10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
As for the rest of your post,I find it odd that someone would go through such lengths to convince themselves and others of thinking they know what they are talking about.
It really shows the weakness of arguments IMHO.
I have always found that simplicity reveals truth and that those who feel the need to have lengthy explanations only do so to hide the fact they are unsure, or purposely not being truthful about the topic they are talking about.
Also, I can see how someone conversing with these sort of people can get caught up in multiple responses for days that would take away from living out the Christian faith and winds up in reality being a trap set by the evil one to do just that.
So, that said, I will not bother responding to you since I see the danger.
You may have the last word.
First of all, using the words solo ecclesia is very vague and I understand that you use it so that you can build up your web of straw arguments and spin about the Catholic Church in which circular arguments can be used between your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture and your PERSONAL interpretation of Holy Tradition and the Magisterium.
Your response is another poor attempt to avoid what is evidenced by blithely dismissing such such as straw or circular arguments, when in reality it is shown that it is your version of Rome that is misleading, and which in defense of a church in which Catholics also must and do engage in interpretation of Tradition, Scripture, and of the teaching of their church itself, while the assurance of her claims relies upon circularity.
the words solo ecclesia is very vague
Which attests to a lack of familiarity with this debate, in which Sola Ecclesia is often used in contrast to Sola Scriptura for as often explained here, while under the latter Scripture alone is the supreme sufficient authority on faith and morals, by which all is judge, it being the assured Word of God, under the former the church is effectively the supreme authority.
Instead of using the term solo ecclesia ,I suggest you understand what is said in Dei Verbum in understanding the 3 legged stool of the Catholic Faith.
Sola ScripturaI is not “solo” as if Scripture was all we may use, or as if formal versus material sufficiency (which provides for the church, etc.) was all that is meant.
In addition, I did understood the premise of the so-called 3 legged stool, but your argument shows a superficial understanding of what constitutes the supreme authority, as while Rome can assert that Tradition and Scripture are what the Church looks to for doctrine, in reality the Church of Rome is the supreme authority, as these sources only constitute and authoritatively mean what she infallibly says they (as well as history) do.
For regardless of challenges, she cannot be wrong (when speaking infallibly), as she has autocratically defined that she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her scope and subject-based criteria, which thus renders her own declaration of infallibility to be infallible, as well as whatever she may interpret for support.
Nor is the veracity of her teachings dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, nor is that allowed to give full assurance of faith, nor are the arguments and reasons behind her infallible pronouncements themselves necessarily infallible, but according to her infallible interpretation (or decree) only her supreme magisterium can be right in any conflict. And by which premise assurance is found.
Thus when faced with challenges, no less an authority than Manning states,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.
This is certainly sola ecclesia, and which premise she also shares with cults such as the LDS who likewise “interpret” their tradition, Scripture and history, which, however contradicted, must be accepted by her adherents under the premise of assured veracity.
Reason is appealed to in making a fallible human decision to give assent of faith to Rome, and interpretation may be employed in discerning what category a teaching of Rome falls into, and its precise meaning, but once a souls believes in Rome then the Catholic is encouraged “like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors,” (Vehementer Nos) and not engage in seeking after religious Truth, thus examining both sides of a question or reading much of Protestant literature. And in fact, at one time it was forbidden for such a lay Catholic (as i assume you are) to engage in debate with such a one as i, and which has its wisdom.
In Scripture however, while noble souls engage in interpretation, (Acts 17:11), no mortal or office was promised or assumed the assured formulaic infallibility of Rome, but assurance is provided upon what is written, (1Jn. 5:13) and Scripture is abundantly evidenced to be the supreme transcendent standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims, as being the assured Word of God, (2Tim. 3:16) with souls being persuaded through “manifestation of the Truth.” (2Cor. 4:2)
As for the rest of your post,I find it odd that someone would go through such lengths to convince themselves and others of thinking they know what they are talking about.
Resorting to mind reading and your protest of the substantiation which is against your portrayal of Catholicism is understandable, while once again it is apparent that i do know of what i speak, thanks be to God (though more was learned), and which remains.