I think we agree. Maybe if I think about it for a while I will find nitpicks, but for now we are good.
I am not totally sure what you are saying, but I will give it a stab.
From the definitions of SS that I have read in this thread, I don’t think they preclude the possibility that there is some part of apostolic teaching that is outside of Scripture.
But if somebody comes to me with a claim that a certain piece of teaching is apostolic and it in fact violates Scripture, then Scripture being the “norma normans” (or whatever the Lutheran term here is) takes precedence over this claim of apostolic origins.
But this whole issue of tradition goes back to my observation about the church. If there is in fact one true church (to the exclusion of all others) that God gives special graces and benefits to that He denies the other churches, then I can trust this one church to tell me what this tradition is (if it does exist). If there is not, then tradition is a matter of (in Wesleyan terms) studying the Bible in the context of history (this is also tradition 1 per Matthison).
But you believe that your pope is incapable of speaking in error when speaking on faith and morals. This is a blessing of God that (if you are correct in this) that God can and will not bestow upon the Orthodox simply because it is logically impossible. Even though you two are similar, you still are different to some extent, and it is logically impossible for two churches that disagree to be incapable of error.
Thus God has provided you a benefit or grace that He can and will not provide the Orthodox. Therefore, just by definition per Catholicism your church is in a superior → inferior relationship (to some extent) to the Orthodox.
Of course how you demonstrate how a specific tenet is in fact Apostolic outside of the Bible is an interesting problem. Now if you believe that one branch and one branch of Christianity alone is exclusively the church of Jesus Christ and has the authority to do this, then your problem is solved. If you do not believe this, I don’t know how this can be proved.
Dear AP, first of all thanks for your charitable constructive attitude.
The crux is not whether we should admit doctrines which are not reflected in Scriptures. It is how we should read Scriptures. SS tells us to read them outside Apostolic Christianity, and in particular outside the Catholic Church.
This is the core of what SS is, IMHO.
Whence does that come ?
Let’s suppose I happen to see in Scriptures a soteriology that is at odds with what the Church teaches. I see it so clearly that I get the persuasion that then she must be wrong, and I proclaim her gravely wrong.
Thus establishing that the Church is not the locus where divine Revelation is conserved .
That Jesus left us without a visible living legitimate perpetual authority offering us a correct teaching on the content of Revelation ( which you are right in saying that catholics identify in the Catholic Church ).
Am I then the locus where original Christianity is correctly reconstructed, by extracting it from the Scriptures ? Whether I implicitly maintain somehow this or not, others come eventually up with their own different views, from their own scriptural readings, attacking not just the Church, but me as well.
This way, for everyone, one’s interpretation takes in principle precedence. This being, IMHO, the real norma normans which is de facto adopted.
Jesus built a Church, to preach and guard His Gospel ( as we probably agree), but we are now told that what we have is Bible only. Reflecting the original teachings, but open to anybody’s interpretation as to what those teachings are that it reflects.
Is this more or less our situation in your view AP ?
To answer directly your last observation, in this model I would not know how to firmly establish whether a specific tenet , which someone proclaims as extracted from Scriptures, does reflect the original message.
In Christ
P7
