You view the Truth of God’s word through the lens of the Fathers and the lens of Tradition.
OTOH, I view Tradition and the Fathers through the lens of God’s word, the Truth.
Are the Fathers inspired writers of Scripture, or infallible?
In discussions with non-Catholics about what the bible teaches about baptism or the Eucharist and such, it seems to me that they claim that we Catholic’s interpret scripture through the lens of the Fathers or by Tradition.
Is that a bad thing?
They claim to go by the bible alone, but don’t these non-Catholics interpret the bible through the lens of the Protestant reformers or by the founder of their particular church or denomination or what they have learned from their pastor?
Don’t Lutherans interpret the bible through the lens of Luther, don’t the reformed Christians interpret through the lens of Calvin?
Doesn’t everyone interpret scripture through the lens of their particular denomination’s lens and their denominations traditions?
So why would their lens be better than the lens of the early church fathers. Why would anyone try to claim that the church fathers weren’t infallible, when the source of their lens were also not infallible, like Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer and John Calvin and the rest.
At least with the early church fathers you have continuity of the teachings passed on from the Apostles, while these other men have a wall of 1,500 years between their teachings and the teachings of the Apostles.
So tell me why I should filter scripture through what these later men taught and believed over what the early church fathers taught and believed.