Over at the blog The Boar's Head Tavern, a couple of their posters have commented on my Solas post below. One of their posters, Josh S, who commented below, wrote this:
Michael, I would like to venture that Josh’s sloppy “Either the Baptist version of sola scriptura is right, or the pope is the infallible Vicar of Christ, and truth is progressively revealed through him” thinking is a product of the sloppy thinking that permeates so much Christianity.
I'd simply like to point out that if one is going to put quotes around something, perhaps it should represent something actually said by the person they're quoting (or perhaps atleast the idea). I certainly never made the argument in that quote, which is really just opening doors for strawman arguments.
He also writes in the same post:
I think you’re right—conversions to Catholicism generally have something much deeper going on than finding out that all the logical holes of one’s tradition are plugged if one jumps on the Newman hype train.
For one, I've not cited Newman. Two, I didn't read Newman until after I had decided to become Catholic. The Patristic witness was quite enough for me.
His fellow blogger, Michael, writes:
What you have in the RCC is infallible tradition, over scripture, and dogma asserted by an infallible pope. That’s a long way from a few names and incidents mentioned from extra-biblical sources.
I'd like to point out that Tradition is not "over Scripture." Again, in order to avoid strawman arguments, it would be most encouraged to be able to correctly articulate the position of another before deciding to attack it (afterall, Aristotle says this is the mark of a learned man).