you ignored my post that notes THERE WAS NO BIBLE IN THE FIRST CENTURY, or second, or third....i can post equally, in fact, more, showing the church, along with sacred tradition and eventually, the whole of the bible were on equal footing.
so, you are left again, with my original point, during the time of no bible, and only the apotles and their successors were there, WHAT ENTITY WAS IN CHARGE?????? it was the ‘pillar and foundation of the truth’, the visible church. and again, you miss the point, the fathers of the church, studied the scriptures directly from the sources i just mentioned and all all were catholics, subjecting themselves to the roman pontiff, sacred tradition and the church....
so, you are left again, with my original point, during the time of no bible, and only the apotles and their successors were there, WHAT ENTITY WAS IN CHARGE?????? it was the ‘pillar and foundation of the truth’, the visible church. and again, you miss the point, the fathers of the church, studied the scriptures directly from the sources i just mentioned and all all were catholics, subjecting themselves to the roman pontiff, sacred tradition and the church....
My point is your early church Fathers are telling you that you are wrong...They are telling you that if you can't back up your theology with scripture, you are a gnostic...
In all of Paul's epistles to the church, or in any of the scriptures, nowhere is there any demand, suggestion or even a hint that anyone should subject himself to a Roman Pontiff...
I'd have to do some searching again but there is recorded history that states when your version of religion turned to pagan Rome and Constantine, there was a sizable church split...Many Christians wanted nothing to do with Rome and her Pagans...