ealgeone:
If Scripture isn’t the source then you have to allow the Mormon their Book of Mormon and the Muslim their Koran.
RB:
Not so. That is your own assumption, inconsistent with all of Church history.
ealgeone:
If the Catholic claims “tradition” the burden is in the (sic) cathokic to show a uniform agreement by the ECFs on the issues.
RB:
The Church is free, guided by the Holy Ghost, to make declarations by its competent authorities. (You make declarations quite freely all on your own! Are you a competent authority of the Church?) The popes (barring the false popes after A.D.1958 to present - another discussion) have such authority, and by the way, there is physical apostolic succession in play here.
Such authoritative declarations can shed fresh light on doctrine but never nullifies prior declarations. The Church has always put very serious weight on the work of the Early Church Fathers. And note, Papal authority is higher even than historical documentation on any early church father.
ealgeone:
As illustrated the ECFs are not in agreement rendering the Catholic claim to tradition as as a source of truth null.
RB:
NOT illustrated. See my comment just above. The fact that ECF’s are not in perfect agreement illustrates the need for higher authority, which if you fail to acknowledge, is of no use to you.
I detect a sort of fatalism on your part, clinging to a thought that because ECF had some disagreement on something, then neither could be right.
It does not violate adherence to tradition when the Church finally authoritatively declares that a certain ECF was correct and the other incorrect. (They cannot both be correct in such cases, thus again, the need for higher authority, which God is capable of providing, no?)
As illustrated the ECFs are not in agreement rendering the Catholic claim to tradition as as a source of truth null.
RB:
NOT illustrated. See my comment just above. The fact that ECF’s are not in perfect agreement illustrates the need for higher authority, which if you fail to acknowledge, is of no use to you.
To illustrate the disagreement among the ECFs:
In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.
Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul ; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt ; and that for her sins also Christ died ( Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum ( Matthew 12:46 ; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. 4).
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056 You have to admit those are some big names among the ECFs.
Yet the catholic encyclopedia online says they are in error on one of roman catholicism's biggest dogmas.
You admit the ecfs are not in 100% agreement. We're getting somewhere.
We've been told there's unanimous agreement by the ECFs on these issues. Yet we know they're not to which you assent and which has briefly been shown above.
The argument roman catholics make as I understand it regarding apostolic succession goes something like this.
The original apostles (OAs) appointed bishops/elders who were taught everything the OAs knew. These in turn appointed bishops/elders teaching them everything they had been taught and so on leading us up to Frances.
If what you're saying, that the ECFs, are not in 100% agreement this means someone has either:
1)introduced something new which was not passed down from Peter, Paul, John, etc..the OAs,
2)forgot something
3) a combination of above
Further, this deviation in teaching would have occurred somewhat early in the life of the church though I think we can make an argument error has been ongoing. You're making that argument in another post on this thread.
As the OAs died off there would be no way to confirm the accuracy of what was being passed on. This allows for error, even slight error, to enter. See the discussion on the translation of Gen 3:15 as an example.
As the error continues it cannot be countered with truth as the error itself becomes truth.
A good example of this involves roman catholic teaching on Mary and all that has transpired regarding the rcc beliefs on Mary.
If the ECFs cannot be relied upon as being true witnesses of what the OAs originally taught we are left with only one authoritative source: Scripture.