Authority - The Fundamental Issue

​

We can banter about, back and forth, all we want - but NONE of these arguments are going to come to a true and final outcome when we operate from wholly variant premises.  If we boil it down, we're left with AUTHORITY.

SOLA ECCLESIAM:

The Catholic position could be summed up to that Latin phrase - which can be translated to "The Church Alone."  Catholics believe that Jesus Christ not only promised to build His Church (Matthew 16:18), but actually DID it - starting at John 21:15-17 (just before He ascended into Heaven).  THAT Church has existed from THAT DAY forward to the present.  Sola ecclesiam does not supplant Scripture - it includes Scripture! 

SOLA SCRIPTURA:

Much of Protestantism clings to this 16th century innovation (never heard of before that time).  This is Latin for "Scripture Alone."  A fairly accepted definition of sola scriptura is:  "Scripture alone is the sole infallible source of instruction for the Church."  Some take this to the extreme and proclaim, "If it's not in the Bible, don't believe it."  Slightly lesser on the extremist side would be "If it's not in the Bible, you don't have to believe it."  A problem here is that Scripture itself NO WHERE teaches sola scriptura!  So, if it's not in Scripture, the sola scriptura adherent is either a) bound NOT to believe it or b) OK with rejecting it, but then it is reduce to relative insignificance and certainly not a foundational belief.

Another problem with sola scriptura is that it's never truly "alone."  Fundamentally speaking, every Protestant is left to decide for him/herself what Scripture is really saying.  This leaves us more with the third position...

SOLUS IPSE:  (or SOLIPSISM)

This would be Latin for "Self Alone" where the ego ultimately makes all the decisions.  In reality, though most Protestants would claim sola scriptura - they are really in a position of solus ipse.  They alone decide either a) what Scripture means or b) whose interpretation of Scripture they will adhere to.  Some will say that Catholics adhere to clause b) here - however what I am referring to here is that Protestants will pick and choose which "confession" they will embrace, or which preacher they will listen to - and if they disagree, they move on to the next confession or preacher.  Catholicism, on the other hand, their version of solus ipse is more fundamental as they yield to one core creed.  While Catholics may move from one parish to another, the fundamental credo does not change.  Solus ispe leaves us with dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands (depending on how one denominates) of variant and opposing truths - which is not logically possible.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

This matter of authority is where ALL our debates truly begin and end.  Once authority is established - the rest of who you are and profess to be falls in place.  Before you engage one of the above "sola" statements - do you agree with this "bottom line" statement?  Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No."

Windsor on Swan on Brumley on Bouyer

James Swan, in a recent article, presents a critique of a posting in the Catholic Answers Forum on Martin Luther or more specifically Louis Bouyer's book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism.  In my humble opinion while I do appreciate that Swan appears to be attempting to find at least some "good" in the Catholic position, he is relying upon (what appears to me to be) modernistic and even revisionist theology, and totally dismissive of what he calls "pre-conciliar works on Protestantism," naming Grisar, Denifle and O'Hare in particular.  Ironically the book in question here was written ten years prior to Vatican II!  If Vatican II is the dividing point between pre- and post-conciliar, then Bouyer's book is pre-conciliar!

While I accept that at times the polemics of the other pre-conciliar authors named above, especially O'Hare, can be quite confrontational, but are or were they really "wrong?"  Why, after 490 some years of Protestantism do we NOW think Luther's ideas weren't so bad?  How can we think his several "solas" could somehow be acceptable and even aid in healing the rift between Catholicism and Protestantism?  I like the summary Bouyer uses:  "The break between Catholics and Protestants was either a tragic necessity (to use Jaroslav Pelikan's expression) or it was tragic because unnecessary."  I'm still on the side of the former - it was unnecessary and I would add, it opposes the Will of God.

If God desires that we be one, (John 17:21-23), as Scripture clearly states He does, then breaking away from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is wholly contrary to His Will.  True "reform" does not happen from without, it happens from within.  That which Luther, Calvin, et al, did divided God's People and thus spits in the face of God and His Will to claim such separation is good and/or holy.  Yes, that is polemical, but it is true - and undeniable to anyone who believes the Scriptures are true and truly God's Word.  If Luther and Co. were truly interested in "reform" then they would have stayed within the Catholic Church and worked toward that reform within God's Will, and not without it.

Swan closes his commentary with the following challenge:

If the infallible Word of God is found elsewhere beyond the Scriptures (say, in Tradition or the Magisterium), scriptura is not sola.

My response to this is, as it always has been, that when Scripture itself points to other infallible sources - then those issuing such a challenge as Swan has made must reject the notion of sola scriptura. Where does Scripture itself point to these other sources? In Matthew 16:18-19 (infallible authority given to one man, who would later become the corypheaus (head) of the Apostolic choir) and in Matthew 18:18 (infallible authority given to a group of men, specifically the Apostolic choir, our first bishops in the Catholic Church). If error cannot be bound or loosed in Heaven, then the authority given above is necessarily infallible authority. So according to Swan, scriptura is not sola.

Rob Zins on Catholic Plan of Salvation

Former Catholic, Rob Zins, has established a "ministry" for Catholics which he calls "A Christian Witness to Roman Catholicism" (CWRC).  In this article I will examine an article Mr. Zins published which allegedly portrays the Catholic plan of salvation.  Zins' article can be found here: http://www.cwrc-rz.org/romancatholicsalvation.html   I would add, Mr. Zins does not consider Catholics to be Christians at all, so one has to keep that in mind too when reading his words.

Zins begins his article in a rather confusing/confounding manner.  He speaks of the seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church - then draws focus to one of them, Holy Orders.  After pointing to Holy Orders he digresses into a brief discussion of celibacy of the priesthood.  Then after that short discourse he admits that celibacy is not a requirement for all Catholic priests and that married clergy is even the "norm" among Eastern Catholics and Orthodoxy.  

In order to understand the Roman Catholic religion one must begin with the Roman Catholic Sacraments. Roman Catholics are taught to trust in their priests who perform religious rituals called Sacraments. There are seven sacraments in the Roman Catholic religion. One is Holy Orders. The term Holy Orders extends to bishops, priests and deacons in the Roman Catholic religion. If a priest has taken a vow of celibacy then he would not be able to partake of all seven sacraments. However, celibacy is not a requirement for all Roman Catholic priests.

One has to wonder what the point of this opening paragraph was!  The opening statement typically would present ones case and present some preliminary arguments to be followed up upon later in the article/essay.  Zins entitles his article "The Roman Catholic Plan of Salvation," but his opening statement has little, if anything, to do with the Catholic teaching on salvation!   Okay, so he wants to lay a foundation of understanding of Catholic Sacraments - but all he has done is begin with a pet argument of many ill-informed Protestant apologists who like to attach priestly celibacy as if it is a dogma - but then Zins shoots down that argument himself!

"The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation." New Catholic Catechism. Paragraph # 1129. 

This is an accurate, if out of context, quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).  Zins, however, continues with disjointed argumentation.

Christians remain unconvinced that Roman Catholic Sacraments are necessary for salvation. 

Well, by Mr. Zins' representation - certainly non-Catholics and especially anti-Catholics would not be "convinced."

The Roman Catholic sacramental scheme is alleged to be constructed upon the Bible. However, in the Roman Catholic religion, there are other sources of authority equal to the Bible. Hence, proof for the seven Sacraments of Rome does not necessarily need to rest upon Scripture. 

Whether or not Mr. Zin's "however" statement is true is irrelevant to the statement that the "sacramental scheme is (alleged to be) constructed upon the Bible."  Mr. Zins has adopted, accepted and embraced the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura - which he defines as:  "That Scripture as contained in the Old Testament (39 books, English) and in the New Testament (27 books, English) is our only infallible and sufficient rule for salvation and sanctification. (2 Timothy 3:16)"  My point in bringing this up is that not only is the teaching of sola scriptura NOT found in Scripture - Scripture itself OPPOSES it!  In Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18 we clearly see that Jesus is empowering men with infallible authority!  These men are our first bishops and their offices continue to this day in the One, True Church.  So yes, while the Seven Sacraments are definitely founded upon Scripture and scriptural precedence, "proof for the seven Sacraments of Rome does not necessarily need to rest upon Scripture."  I would submit that "proof" lies with one who has faith - and for one who lacks faith, no explanation will suffice.

Rome's doctrine of Sola Ecclesia [sic] (the Church alone) establishes and defines doctrine.

Well, first off the Latin words would not be capitalized in this context.  Second, it would be "sola ecclesiam."  Third, I would challenge Mr. Zims to demonstrate the Catholic Church actually using this phrase in defining doctrine.  While it is a common summary (one which I myself embraced back in 1988-89 in debates with James White), the phrase simply is not used in official teaching by the Church.  That being said, Scripture is PART OF the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, it is not apart from it!  What is defined in Scripture is not defined apart from the Catholic Church!  The Scriptures were written by Catholics and the Canon of Sacred Scripture was established by Catholics through the Holy Ghost.

Christians, trusting in the Bible alone for salvation and sanctification, understand that heaven is given to lost sinners on the basis of faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone. Such faith consists in confidence that Christ alone, at His cross, suffered and died for all of the sins of His Church which is the Body of Christ. Such a faith completely trusts in the promises of God in Christ Jesus. One such assurance is eternal forgiveness of all sins and punishments based entirely upon the satisfaction of Christ's death. Such a faith takes the righteousness of Christ as the complete ground of justification. Such a faith grasps Christ's righteousness immediately. Christians believe there is only One mediator between God and man and He is Jesus Christ. 

Again I must assert that this "Bible alone" doctrine is opposed by Scripture, but we've discussed that already.  What Zins goes into next is essentially a statement of sola fide - also opposed by Scripture in James 2:24.   In fact, it is James 2:24, and ONLY there that Scripture uses the words "faith" and "alone" together, and it is in NEGATION of faith alone, or sola fide!  That being said, Catholics believe that all grace comes from the Cross and Jesus Christ.  We believe in the promises of God in Jesus Christ.  We not only believe Him, we OBEY Him!  We do not doubt His Word when He said He would build His Church (singular, not plural) and that this Church would be built upon "this rock" - and in context, we find that Simon Bar-Jonah was just named "Rock" in that same passage!  

Christians also believe there is no mediator between them and Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic religion believes itself to be the mediator between man and Jesus Christ. But Christians cannot conceive of a "go-between" and deny the necessity of a "a middle man" between poor lost sinners and Jesus Himself!

I would challenge Mr. Zins to present the official Catholic teaching which states the Catholic religion is the mediator between man and Jesus Christ.  This is simply a false statement and then while not discussing the Sacraments AT ALL in this piece, Zins concludes:

Hence, the entire Roman Catholic sacramental system is inappropriate and in the way when seen in the light of the Christian's direct access to God via a direct route to Jesus. 

So, Mr. Zins has missed the mark entirely.  He does not discuss the Sacraments - and then based upon his misunderstanding of the relationship between Jesus Christ and His Church and the Sacraments He established - he concludes this system, implemented by Christ Himself, is "inappropriate."

I would be happy to engage Mr. Zins further in a discussion of the scriptural basis of the Sacraments and the relationship of Jesus Christ to His Church through those Sacraments if he would accept this invitation to a scholarly discussion/debate.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Validity

John Bugay10/05/2013 5:53 PM

Scott: You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years. Just a word about "validity". Apostolic succession itself has no validity -- especially not the Roman version. In reality, it's a late second century invention -- it may have been descriptive of the way that the second century church established its legitimacy vis-a-vis the Gnostics, but to then turn that around and suggest that this method "is prescriptive for all time" is a heinous usurpation of Christ's own authority in the church. In effect, the Reformation sought to purge the church from its later, unbiblical accretions. In the sense that the Protestant churches are Biblical, that is where they achieve their "validity". Roman authority is simply a lie that has been foisted on Christianity, and it's something that the mindless and the thoughtless and the deceived have latched onto.

Since this was a distraction to the point I had made on Triablogue (and I accept the responsibility for introducing the distraction) and I cannot create a new entry on Triablogue, I am creating a new topic here.

Well, in reality here, the article by Michael Kruger [1] which Mr. Bugay refers to is not really about apostolic succession, rather the establishment of the Canon of Sacred Scripture - which was INDEED a process which went way BEYOND the second century!  In fact, there was not a relatively stable canon until the late fourth century.  That being said, Kruger's article is talking about sola scriptura - which is the Protestant root of authority, the "sole infallible rule of faith for the church" [2].  In that sense, he is opposing sola ecclesiam, the Catholic position.  I'll get back to the sola scriptura v. sola ecclesiam argument in a moment.  Let me remind the reader, MY POINT was:  "You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years."   Mr. Bugay, in his attempt to divert the discussion to sola scriptura, has not answered to any of my objections!  Let me enumerate them, just to be crystal clear.  

1. No Eucharist
2. No apostolic succession
3. No history beyond, or even a bit less than 500 years.

NONE of these points are answered!  In essence, Mr. Bugay's diversion is concession to my points.  I thank him for such an easy victory!

Let us look at what he did argue for himself, instead of the diversion of Krugar and sola scriptura:

In effect, the Reformation sought to purge the church from its later, unbiblical accretions.

What are these alleged "unbiblical accretions?"  An undocumented, unsupported assertion is wholly an invalid argument.

In the sense that the Protestant churches are Biblical, that is where they achieve their "validity"

The Gnostics, whom Bugay even refers to here, a "Biblical!"  They based their beliefs in Scripture too, albeit an invalid reading/interpretation of Scripture - but their claim to being "Biblical" is just as valid as Mr. Bugay's!  For that matter, the Catholic Church is also "Biblically based," in that we point to many Scriptures as supporting our arguments.  Merely stating "Protestant churches are Biblical" is a relatively meaningless statement.

Roman authority is simply a lie that has been foisted on Christianity, and it's something that the mindless and the thoughtless and the deceived have latched onto. 

Again, no substance, just an unsupported assertion.  Mr. Bugay does not present a single alleged "lie" which has allegedly been "foisted on Christianity."  And he tops that off with nothing less than a direct ad hominem toward anyone who has accepted Catholicism as the one, true Faith.  

Does Mr. Bugay think he's making a valid argument here?  He has done nothing of the sort!

Let us now look at what Mr. Bugay said regarding authority...

it may have been descriptive of the way that the second century church established its legitimacy vis-a-vis the Gnostics, but to then turn that around and suggest that this method "is prescriptive for all time" is a heinous usurpation of Christ's own authority in the church. 

Right here he gives away the store!  First off, if it was a legitimate establishment of authority against the Gnostics, then what makes it illegitimate after that period of time even up to the present?  Secondly, there can be no usurpation of Christ's own authority when it was upon His authority (Matthew 16:18) the Church was built!  Again, that Church did not wait 1500 years to be built either, and as Bugay concedes, it establishes a legitimacy in presenting its case against the Gnostics in the second century!  

Let the reader be reminded, the "first century" are the years before 100ad!  That was the apostolic era, seeing as how St. John (according to Tradition) lived well into the 90s of that first century.  The "second century" then begins with the first generation of bishops in the post-apostolic era.  It is precisely those bishops, most notably St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John the Apostle and direct successor to the Petrine seat at Antioch, who specifically declares the validity of the authority of the office of the bishop:

You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God's commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid. [3]  (emphasis added)

St. Ignatius lays it out strong and hard here!  To be "valid" it must be permitted by the bishop and/or one whom he has approved.  Period, end of story!  Keep in mind folks, St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the Apostle!  This apple fell straight off the tree!

So how about late second century:

St. Irenaeus 
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]). [4]

And third century:

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]). [5]

And fourth century:

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]). [6]

Clearly the matter of apostolic succession is brought up early and often in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (and there are many other quotations with citations which could be brought out). 

So, How About Sola Scriptura?

Well, at the root, sola scriptura is a non-scriptural concept, even anti-scriptural.  Why do Catholic apologists say this?  First off, no where in Scripture will one find the teaching that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church, no where.  Secondly, Scripture itself points us to ANOTHER infallible authority!  In Matthew 16:19 Jesus states that St. Peter (speaking to him alone at this point) has the authority to bind or loose whatsoever he chooses - and whatsoever he binds or loosed is bound or loosed in Heaven!  Now, unless you contend that error can be bound or loosed in Heaven, that is infallible authority given to St. Peter!  Then later in the same Gospel, Matthew 18:18, this authority is similarly given to the rest of the Apostles as a group.  So, on one hand you have the authority given to the one (pope) and on the other hand you have this infallible authority given to the group (the college of bishops).  Sola scriptura is utterly refuted at this point!

In short, sola scriptura is a lie - so who has, in Mr. Bugay's words, been "deceived and latched on to" the lie?

In over 25 years of my defending the Catholic Church and challenging sola scriptura, NOT ONE PERSON has been able to document the teaching of sola scriptura from Scripture!  Certainly there a many attempts to use verses which support a concept of satis scriptura (sufficiency), but NOT ONE speaks to "sola."

Back to the argument from Kruger and the establishment of the Canon of Sacred Scripture...  where does Scripture dictate to us which books are to be counted as Scripture?  Certainly there are some clues, but no where is there an "infallible table of contents" in Scripture alone.  The process of establishing the Canon of Sacred Scripture is itself an argument AGAINST sola scriptura because Scripture itself, or alone, does not define the canon!

[1] http://michaeljkruger.com/is-the-church-over-the-bible-or-the-bible-over-the-church/
[2] James White as qtd. on: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/01/sola-scriptura-self-refuting.html
[3] http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ignatius_smyrnaeans.htm (paragraph 8)
[4] Qtd. on: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm
[5] ibid
[6] ibid

Sola Ecclesiam

What Is Sola Ecclesiam?

In a recent video blog, White brings this subject up as if it is something new, when in fact I believe I coined the term with him about 20 years ago!  He didn't run with it much back then, but now he's putting a different spin on it.  20 years ago I embraced the term!  Now he apparently thinks this is something Catholics should shun.   When I used sola ecclesiam on White I pointed out that the Church is all encompassing of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium - and that sola ecclesiam IS the true nature of Christendom.  Jesus didn't build a book, in fact He didn't write a single thing - except something unknown in the sand when the accusers of the harlot were about to stone her.  No, Jesus built the Church!  Jesus established bishops to be in charge of governing His Church and gave them infallible authority to bind or loose whatsoever they chose whenever THEY determined the necessity of dogmatically defining a teaching.   Jesus NEVER said they would find everything they would ever need within the confines of a book - much less a book that would not be fully compiled in the form we recognize today for nearly 400 years after His Resurrection!

I found it a bit ironic that White took my argument from 20 years ago and attempts to table turn it stating Catholics have come up with sola ecclesiam to counter sola scriptura!  I laughed out loud when I heard that!  It was my argument that Protestantism, which needed a new and different authority (a different gospel) from that which preceded them, invented sola scriptura to be the authority over all including the Church which Christ built and defined what is and isn't Scripture FOR the People of God.  Now I'm not absolutely sure I coined the phrase "sola ecclesiam" (or sola ecclesia) but I am still unaware of anyone else using the terminology prior to my use of it with White 20 years ago.

Scripture is indeed the Word of God and therefore is authoritative - but faulty interpretations of Scripture lead to heresy both in the past and ongoing to this day.  White is quick to point to previous apologists example of the Arian Heresy wherein it is argued that both sides make their case, logically, from Scripture.  White points us to another article on his blog written by one who goes by the pseudonym of "Tur8infan" (and why apologists hide behind pseudonyms is beyond me, what are they ashamed of? - but that's another topic) wherein he (assuming "he") asserts that Arianism was "refuted" many times by the Early Church Fathers (ECFs).  I respond - yes, in their view Arianism was indeed refuted - BUT - did said refutations end the heresy?  NO!  The "end" to the heresy lies in Church declarations, not Scripture!  Arianism did eventually die out and was not seen again until relatively recently in cults like Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.  The point is, Scripture alone did NOT put an end to the heresy!  Certainly those who agreed and/or agree with Sts. Athanasius or Alexander or Augustine, etc. (as do I) will agree with the assertions that Arianism is refuted.  The point is, however, that Arianism counters with its own claims and scriptural backing!  Modern Arians in the Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing to this day!  If Scripture ALONE is the sole authority, then why is any given person or group's interpretation any more or less valid than another's?  Therein lies the fatal flaw of sola scriptura!  Scripture alone only refutes Arianism among those who agree with each other.  Most Christians are not Arians - yet what makes this majority right - simply because they are in the majority?  Why is their interpretation more accepted than the Arian interpretation?  Logic, validity and truth are not based in majority rule!  At times, especially in the case of St. Athanasius (whom "Tur8infan" brings up) when his view became the minority view amongst Christians!  Thank God for his steadfastness and that the Church eventually came around to not only refute (again, I do not deny the refutation) but also declared (which is more important) the heresy of Arianism.  Arianism is not necessarily inconsistent with Scripture, it is inconsistent with the interpretation of Scripture of the majority of Christians - it is quite consistent with its own interpretation of Scripture.

So sola ecclesiam (or sola ecclesia) is not something we, Catholics, should fear - it is the TRUTH!  Scripture is PART OF the ecclesiam just as much as Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are.  The Church does not stand opposed to Scripture - as the sola scripturists would represent the argument to be - no!  It is the Church which defined what IS Scripture and defends God's Word throughout the ages!  Scripture, afterall and after the fact, records the early actions of the Church which preceded the inscripturation.  Except in the case of prophecy, the People of God (the Church) has always pre-existed the inscripturation regarding the People of God (the Church).  Therefore the Church embraces Scripture as a necessary PART of herself. 

The Church did not pop up some 1500 years after the fact with artificial humility and declare itself subservient to the Scriptures which she herself defined some 1100 years earlier.  No, this concept of sola scriptura came up out of necessity of the protesters of the 16th century who needed a different authority to adhere to than that which was previously adhered to.  This "different gospel" was invented to give them a different foundation upon which to build their new "church."  Why is it that such a foundation concept, as Protestants would have you believe, is never EVER heard of throughout ALL the Early Church Fathers?  The terminology is Latin, and yet NOT ONE of the Latin Fathers (Western) EVER used the term "sola scriptura," NOT ONE!  This fact alone should throw out red flags to the objective reader.  Let the objective reader make an objective study of this and prove me right, or prove me wrong. 

In JMJ,
Scott<<<