[Tantumergo]

"Simply, those teachers and theologians who strictly adhere to the rule of Faith."

You get straight back to the same problem that the "solos" have - How do you decide which teachers and theologians strictly adhere to the rule of faith?

In what you propose it still falls on the shoulders of the fallible, non-omniscient, time-bound individual believer to judge which of their potential "elders" or "teachers" are orthodox according to their own personal criteria.

"The RCC gave up that right when it added non-apostolic tradition to the rule of Faith."

Again WHO so decides that any non-apostolic tradition has been added? Who conferred authority on you to make this judgement?

You are simply asserting your personal and individual opinion, measured according to your personal and individual understanding of what scripture and the "Rule of faith" teaches.

It is this same absolutist individualism which has bedevilled the heirs of the Reformation with the spirit of schism for the last 450 years.

[lockeliberty]

You are simply asserting your personal and individual opinion, measured according to your personal and individual understanding of what scripture and the "Rule of faith" teaches.

That's crap and you know it. The early church fathers were taught directly by the Apostles. The objective evidence is the writings of the early church Fathers which delinate how to interpret scripture as taught to them by the Apostles. That the RCC abandoned the strict constructionism of the 'rule of Faith' is not under question, is it? It is not much different than Liberals who wish a 'living document' interpretation of the Constitution. The Apostles passed along these set of beliefs so that there would be unity in the Church against the heresy of Gnosticism. This gave us the objective a priori foundation against the 'special knowledge' of the Gnostics. But now the RCC would like us to believe that the Pope has some 'special knowledge'. Ironic, isn't it?