You know, the RCC claiming credit and responsibility for Scripture does a couple things.
First off, it really destroys it’s divine inspriation. It then becomes a book written by men who later take responsibility for it.
And if that’s the case, then it makes it easier for tradition to trump it because since the RCC takes responsibility for both, it gives it the power to decide which one is more authoritative.
The argument that the RCC wrote the Bible because the men who wrote it were Catholics is without merit. For the Catholic church to posthumously claim that the writers of Scripture to be Catholic, when that was never acknowledged by the writers themselves, therefore it wrote the Bible, is disingenuous on their part.
Anyone can make any kind of claim they want and it doesn’t make it true.
There’s no where in the Bible where writers make any claim to Catholicism or even unity under one leader. The early church was a very loose association of local congregations scattered across Asia. The world *catholic* never shows up in Scripture.
Catholicism claiming that the writers of the Bible were Catholic sounds too much like the Mormon’s who go back through their family lines to have their dead ancestors baptized.
God preserved the Bible intact in spite of the Catholic church, not because of it.
The irony is, this can be proven, as the RCC does not even KNOW what the Gospel is. They know all the works, doctrines, traditions, and superstitions. But they can not tell you what the Gospel is. There should be absolutely no confusion as to who to believe. The Gospel or the Roman Catholic Church. As different as night and day.
Is Mary sinless - NO.
Even according to the RCC with ‘their Mary’. Since Mary was married, she must have, first, married under a false premise - with no intention of fulfilling her marriage vows. And, second, ignored ‘be submissive to your husband’ and the reason for marriage - to procreate.
Perhaps, next we will see the Vatican giving Mary a posthumous annulment.
Amen. We are told to be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind (Phil. 2:2). We are also advised to:
"Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Eph. 4:3-6).
Now I certainly believe that we can accomplish this unity and still have differing customs in regard to church hierarchy, structure and manner of worship. It is only those who want total control and therefor, total power who insist that Scripture requires a single, united under a supreme "commander" "church" institution. We have freedom and liberty in Christ and, yet, are united in the major doctrines of our common faith. I have enough trust in our Lord that he desires that above all else - the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and in all things, love.
AMEN to that fact!
There’s no where in the Bible where writers make any claim to Catholicism or even unity under one leader.
Maybe not the Capital 'C' catholicism, but the non-Dispensational believers recognize a universal church made up of the Church militant and triumphant. Not satisfied with that, Rome added the "Church Padecent" because a loved one died, the Vatican wanted money, and buying candles has long been a recognized form of bringing about one's salvation.
Your point is strongest regarding "under one leader". Rome likes to claim that while Jesus Christ was head of the Church, that in absence of His physical presence, that through the powers of tranformative language worked out on Matthew 16:18, this somehow relates to Peter being the first Pope and through a screwy lottery system comes a successor.
I have seen a gallery of arguments against this, mostly challenges to the language, but it is Peter himself, who seems to cancel out the idea that he is "the" (definite article) "rock" when he counts himself as one of many "living stones". (1 Peter 2:5)
Furthermore, we have this passage in Ephesians:
Eph 2:20-22 "...having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
Here Paul identified "The" (definite article) "Rock" as Jesus Christ, who surely not physically present on earth when Paul wrote this still retains the identity of not only being the Foundation stone, but also the Corner stone. IOW, it is obvious that Jesus Christ never relinquished His role as head of the Church, never surrendering it to another man or a series of carnal men. Second, Paul doesn't identify Peter as being "the" stone, rather, he counts the apostles and the OT Prophets as the foundation. This theme is picked up again routinely in Revelation (4:4,10; 5:8,14;11:16...) as the foundation is the twenty-four apostles and prophets (or tribes if you wish)
Therefore, Rome is not only at odds with Peter, but with Paul and the LORD who provided John the vision. Those who have been appointed by God were able to demonstrate that authority through miracles. Rome has no such evidence that any of the Popes are legitimate heirs because, oddly enough for a cult that demands "works" - they have no works in what is arguably the most important role to exhibit works. You are correct in your observations that Rome has supplanted Jesus Christ and His testimony in the Scriptures by conjuring up Traditions to replace God's revealed will for what is clearly man's will.
For Rome to say that they alone have authority, their own Sola Potestate, and to derive that from having "Holy Tradition" trump Scriptures, and to declare that Holy Tradition supersedes Scripture is worse than grading your own tests, its writing your own tests and then grading them.
> “God preserved the Bible intact in spite of the Catholic church, not because of it.”
.
This is the truth that every catholic must grasp in order to be saved!
“Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Not at all. The Holy Tradition is divinely inspired as well. The Scripture is just a subset of it.
There’s no where in the Bible where writers make any claim to Catholicism or even unity under one leader
Maybe not a claim, but there is a strong condemnation of disunity (1 Cor 1:13) and Jesus's prayer for unity of His Church in John 14. That was St. Paul's work in the Church, to ensure her Catholicity, even though he did not use the word.