Replies

Stopped reading after the first few sentences, no reason to even try to disagree with him.

Well, I'll stop right here at your post. Most of the first 37 Say the OP is wrong. Because, well it's wrong. That's about it. You, at least have the honesty to admit to not reading it all. So, here is one and only one point I will ask for a refutation.

Please read this short snip

The early Church (in the time of the Apostles) did not have the books of the New Testament (mostly since they were still being written), and it wasn’t until many generations later that these books were codified and the canon was created. The Church spent the bulk of its early life without these New Testament scriptures, thus, Sola Scriptura is historically speaking a fairly new idea (it’s hard to preach “Scripture Alone” when you don’t yet have Scriptures…).

The question this raises is this: What was the means by with the early church (for at least a couple hundred years) was kept free from error? How was anyone to know to not consult, say, The Gospel of Thomas?

While not codified they were in wide spread circulation. The canon was created because the vast majority of folk recognized the heretical books that were working their way in hundreds of years later.

How do you reconcile the fact that Catholic doctrine clearly contradicts Scripture? I mean they are supposed to be equal, right? And in my many years here I have seen over and over again that Rome sees Scripture as a handmaiden to “tradition. “

"The question this raises is this: What was the means by with the early church (for at least a couple hundred years) was kept free from error?

Can you not give God credit for anything?? Would He not see over His Church? Does the Catholic Church have to be like a sponge sopping up every bit of credit for anything worthwhile and blindly ignoring her sordid past? I think that's called affirmation bias but correct me if I'm wrong.