That is more the Easter Orthodox model, but in reality rather than minimizing the role of the pope and magisterium, both are exalted by Catholics due to their need for interpretation.
No, that is not true. The Orthodox do also follow the historic Catholic model, but that is because they are historically Catholic. That shouldn't surprise anyone. But it is the Catholic approach to doctrine and dogma, and is why the Church was such a stalwart of dogmatic reliability for almost 2000 years. The abandonment of that truly Catholic understanding of the faith has created all the chaotic dissonance of recent past.
And looking for what has been accepted as true for all that time is quite restricted with much of a full universal sense, and esp. at the time of the Reformation there was a lot of variance.
Yes, but it was not variance arising out of a historic understanding of the Church, but from one of innovation. It was a reinterpretation of the faith from humanistic ideals, fueled by the Enlightenment, and as such was an artificial twisting of doctrinal reliability. Fortunately the Church survived that trauma, but only to unimaginably capitulate on most of the same issues four hundred or so years later. Talk about inexplicable.
The claimed "unanimous consent " hardly ever actually true, if at all in much of a full sense. And there was and is later disagreement and need for interpretation as to what the Spirit speaking through the Church throughout history and all time.
Here you buy into a very common error with your statement of unanimous consent. Go back and look at my post and you will see I rejected that notion out of hand. It has never been Catholic. It is a straw man. The Church has held and taught the apostolic faith handed down through the Spirit, and at times it was largely a minority one. Consider the period of the Arian heresy for example. However, it was never doubted what the orthodox faith was because it could be found attested to by the Church as a whole throughout even the early period. Yes, many individuals dissented, but that didn't change the witness of the Church through which the wheat could be sifted from the chaff. Your unanimous consent is not, and has never been relevant.
Thus if you hang around here much, you will see RCs basically invoking the argument you thought was a bit of a loaded statement, and that i then refuted.
This is a very strange assertion which causes me to wonder if you actually read my above post, or the previous one to which you replied.
Are you SSPX or something?
No, I am a layman. I have never been to any traditionalist services because I have spent my 40 years in the desert. But, I do believe that the Church didn't fall out of the sky in 1964, or 1864 for that matter. Anyone hoping to understand the faith must look beyond their own culture and their own contemporary time and seek the truth which is always held. No, again, not unanimous consent, but consistent 2000 year witness, which is not the same thing at all, but much more meaningful. In a revealed religion, such as Christianity, tradition is not an option, but requisite. If you sever yourself from the faith of history you cannot know the historic Christ. That is true for people who call themselves Catholic as much as it is for all believers.
I am not sure what you disagree with,or that the role of the pope and magisterium are exalted by Catholics due to their need for interpretation.
What i meant in the second second part refers to Roman Catholicism while what you had described is indeed more the Easter Orthodox model, for you said "we look not to a pope" in contrast to it being "about individual men interpreting the bible and presenting that as definitive" (which is not exactly what i meant, but the pope and magisterium defining what Scripture and tradition mean).
Rome does direct souls to look to the pope, and thus even here we daily are given updates on the latest speech or action by the pope.
In contrast, the EOs reject papal infallibility and his having power he can exercise unhindered.
But it is the Catholic approach to doctrine and dogma, and is why the Church was such a stalwart of dogmatic reliability for almost 2000 years.
Actually, while it has upheld certain core truths such as expressed in the Apostles Creed, and which evangelical faith has also historically upheld and contended for without even a central magisterium, the Catholic approach to doctrine and dogma, in which the church, not Scripture is supreme, has led to the perpetuation of extraScriptural and unBiblical traditions, as well as disagreements and formal division over what tradition, Scripture and history teaches. Including the role and power of the the pope, among many other things. (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html)
The abandonment of that truly Catholic understanding of the faith has created all the chaotic dissonance of recent past.
Leaving you in the desert, but while i do not see any church as matching the prima NT church in purity, power and passion, yet the essence of the church is the gospel of grace, in which souls are convicted that they are damned+destitute sinner, fit for Hell not Heaven, and unable to escape the former or merit the latter, but must look with contrite heart to the Divine Son of God, trusting the Lord Jesus to save Him by His blood expense and credit.
But this preaching and regeneration the church has its members, versus a church which imagines the road to glory as as usually beginning with sprinkling water on an innocent infant makes him formally justified by interior holiness, and usually end with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering mythical purgatory.
The Church has held and taught the apostolic faith handed down through the Spirit, and at times it was largely a minority one...Your unanimous consent is not, and has never been relevant.
That is not my claim, but Rome's: "nor will I ever receive and interpret them [the Scriptures] except according to [evidently contrary to] the unanimous consent of the fathers." (Vatican 1 Profession of faith) It chooses who the fathers are, if not infallibly, then what constitutes unanimous.
This is a very strange assertion which causes me to wonder if you actually read my above post, or the previous one to which you replied.
I was responding to it as i read it, as if it were defending the Roman church like others.
No, I am a layman. I have never been to any traditionalist services because I have spent my 40 years in the desert. But, I do believe that the Church didn't fall out of the sky in 1964, or 1864 for that matter. Anyone hoping to understand the faith must look beyond their own culture and their own contemporary time and seek the truth which is always held.
Agreed, but the church is the body of Christ, which is manifested by faith in Christ which works by love, but with both Corinthian believers and Philippians types. Often it was even more of a remnant than other times, and it was and it "troubled on every side, yet not distressed; perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed," (2 Corinthians 4:8-9) to the glory of God.
In a revealed religion, such as Christianity, tradition is not an option, but requisite. If you sever yourself from the faith of history you cannot know the historic Christ.
Of course there is tradition, that of Scripturally based tradition such as what "modesty" meant, but are not as doctrines such as forbid fornication or even the basically literal hermeneutic behind such prohibitions. And which depend upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation for their veracity.
In contrast is that of making oral tradition with Scripture, and the church as the supreme infallible authority on what both mean. By such elevation of tradition you have traditions of men perpetuated, from prayer to departed saints, which is not supported by Scripture, to papal infallibility, purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, and other traditions of Mariology, a pastors distinctively titled sacerdotal "priests," justification and regeneration via paedobaptism, literally consuming the Lord to gain spiritual life, etc.
That is true for people who call themselves Catholic as much as it is for all believers.
Then they would not be believers if they did not subscribe to them, but holding to such traditions as above is what is contrary to being a believer.