LOL. And the Protestant experience with "sola" is better??? Y'all can't even agree as to what the "Scriptura" actually means. If the Holy Spirit was actually speaking to each and every one of you, then there would be no disgreement, and in fact there would not BE umpty-thousand different Protestant variations.
In fact, the ONLY thing that those umpty-thousand different variations believe in common is that "if the RCC teaches it, then it has to be wrong". And that pretty much tells me in and of itself which position is correct.
Certainly "scriptura" is correct, but not "sola".
"All that is true is of God". I don't recall who said that, and don't have time to look it up, but it is self-evidently true.
You wrote:
And the Protestant experience with “sola” is better??
I would have to say yes...because we are at least looking towards scripture...
You wrote:
Y’all can’t even agree as to what the “Scriptura” actually means. If the Holy Spirit was actually speaking to each and every one of you, then there would be no disgreement, and in fact there would not BE umpty-thousand different Protestant variations.
The definition that the reformers used is the one I go by...today I would agree with you most Protestants do not know what it meant...they have a “solo” scriptoria that excludes the Regula fide that the church always taught...and what the early church taught is found in the writings of the early church fathers...you nicely dodged the questions I asked regarding Marian teaching...But I will continue to hold you to answer those questions....I will cheat a bit for you and let you know that NOTHING of the sort of Marian doctrines that are taught today were EVER taught in the apostolic fathers.... The letter of clement of Rome to Corinth...nothing on Mary BUT it did uphold central christian doctrines....poly arp...nothing on Mary even remotely like what Rome teaches today....Ignacio’s...DOES mention Mary BUT again only as it relates to what has been taught in scripture...
So therefore the proof is on you to show that your tradition, to make it easier lets limit it to Mary, upholds what was taught in the early church. It is easy for me since in the writings of the early church it surely doesn’t..
To answer another part of your argument if someone uses the scriptures WRONGLY that doesn’t put sola scriptora to disrepute. For example if I have a users guide to say a computer and I only read part of the guide and not the whole thing is the fault in me or the guide? It’s in me in that I am not using it correctly. The fault is NOT in the concept that all I need to know to operate the computer effectively is found in the guide, “sola user guidia”. How the RCC concept of tradition would apply to the user guide example is that you could say well I was told by someone else that the you can use the computer “this way” even though “that way” is not written down in the user guide. “Nor was ever mentioned by anyone else”...
Also in response to your assertion of thousands of Protestant denominations please look at the following:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a86.htm
It show the fallacy of such an argument....also if one even looks at say two totally different denominations...say baptist or Presbyterian let’s look at the following. Do they both affirm the CORE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES NEEDED FOR SALAVATION? Yes....where do they differ? On peripheries...infant baptism vs believers baptism., church polity etc...are they doctrines essential for salvation? No
Then to let’s apply the RCC interpretation and charge to the early church...we’re they all under Rome?. No.... Did they have different traditions that they held to as in form of worship etc... Yes...so by using the definition that is ridiculously applied to ports regarding thousands of denominations then using the same standards you have to level the same charge against the early church...