Why thank you! We know I can use all the help I can get. 
Yes, well you left this part off:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.vi.xxvii.html?highlight=scripture#highlight
Chapter 27.One Passage Susceptible of Various Interpretations.
38. When, again, not some one interpretation, but two or more interpretations are put upon the same words of Scripture, even though the meaning the writer intended remain undiscovered, there is no danger if it can be shown from other passages of Scripture that any of the interpretations put on the words is in harmony with the truth.
It helps to keep it all in proper context and perspective.
I find the text I highlighted in red telling. Have you ever heard him say anything about "Sacred Tradition" being "completely free from error?" That's not the same as saying common teachings can be trustworthy and accurate.
I'm really confused as to how this comment furthers your argument. Perhaps you could give me a little more help.
Hah! Are you sure you're not trying to make my argument for me? The question posed here does say, "Let us search for the church in the sacred Scriptures" doesn't it? Or am I reading it wrong. Because if it says what it appears to say, that sort contradicts what the RCs have been arguing doesn't it?
Oh, I see your point now--I think.
I will make a few of points here. 1) Authority does not necessarily equate to rule or power over. It often speaks to a level of knowledge or expertise. Nobody here denies that any church possesses that. 2) The "c"atholic church of which Augustine speaks is not the "C"atholic Church of today. 3) Now that we have established that Augustine was a faithful follower/teacher/father/doctor of the Church, we can infer quite accurately from his teachings to what regard and esteem the church of His day held Scripture. Can we not? If he is merely teaching what he has learned from the church then we know the Church regarded Scripture to be of a "'sublime authority' than the mortals through whom it was dispensed whiled they yet lived."
Sure would be nice if you would post links so we don't have to hunt these quotes down. Here's an interesting tidbit:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.vi.xxvii.html?highlight=scripture#highlight
Chapter 31.Use of Dialectics. Of Fallacies.
49. As, then, valid conclusions may be drawn not only from true but from false propositions,
the laws of valid reasoning may easily be learnt in the schools, outside the pale of the Church.
But the truth of propositions must be inquired into in the sacred books of the Church. "To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you" C. Cresconius I:33
The author is not saying that Scripture does not necessarily address a set of particular examples, only that it may not
clearly address them.
Too brief to address and no more time to hunt down the entire quote.
So, what are you suggesting we infer from this passage, that Augustine thought that it was/is okay to simply accept something at face value of whatever whoever tells us and we know no better?
Here are a couple of other quotes I came across.
Chapter 28. It is Safer to Explain a Doubtful Passage by Other Passages of Scripture Than by Reason.
39. When, however, a meaning is evolved of such a kind that what is doubtful in it cannot be cleared up by indubitable evidence from Scripture, it remains for us to make it clear by the evidence of reason. But this is a dangerous practice. For it is far safer to walk by the light of Holy Scripture; so that when we wish to examine the passages that are obscured by metaphorical expressions, we may either obtain a meaning about which there is no controversy, or if a controversy arises, may settle it by the application of testimonies sought out in every portion of the same Scripture.
Chapter 36.That Interpretation of Scripture Which Builds Us Up in Love is Not Perniciously Deceptive Nor Mendacious, Even Though It Be Faulty. The Interpreter, However, Should Be Corrected.
41. Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. Nevertheless, as I was going to say, if his mistaken interpretation tends to build up love, which is the end of the commandment, he goes astray in much the same way as a man who by mistake quits the high road, but yet reaches through the fields the same place to which the road leads. He is to be corrected, however, and to be shown how much better it is not to quit the straight road, lest, if he get into a habit of going astray, he may sometimes take cross roads, or even go in the wrong direction altogether.
This last quote reminds me of an analogy I used to use showing how the Holy Spirit leads us all the same (I use a master and three dogs), it is we who follow who go astray. Eventually, we all get to the same place, it just takes some of us longer to get there. (just ask me if you want me to repost)
)
