>>18518926
looks like partial ai slop but lets get to it

>1. Scripture can't take precedence over apostolic Tradition. The Biblical Canon was only compiled in the late 300s, and the decision of which books to include had to rely on 3 centuries of apostolic Tradition. Scripture also can't be the only source of Revelation because that would mean God has deprived His followers from access to His truth for centuries.
better argument is that no matter what scripture has to be interpreted. so every person having their own interpretation of text that is already very symbolic would be a disaster that would lead to thousands of separate denominati- oh wait.

also 1 Timothy 3:15 "the church is the pillar and ground of truth"

also Paul's ministry in Ephesus of 3 years where he preached, that matters and yet its not in the scriptures

also things around how the liturgy should be done and many more things that are not in the bible and yet are needed

also prots dont have an answer how do they know that matthew wrote matthew. its purely tradition

>2. Jesus Christ explicitly said that St. Peter would lead his Church and he would have the authority to bind and loose from earth to heaven
he then also gave the literal same ability to all other apostoles, so yes, he was literally just a first among equals.

> 4.
evolution debooonks all christian denominations as you cant both believe that jesus took on specifically the unique human nature and all the things that he did with it on the cross while at the same time believing that, actually, humans can theoretically evolve into crabs in a billion years or whatever and all life forms are basically constantly transitioning into other things slowly and can interbreed/overlap etc

>>18519031
Catholics have thousands of different interpretations. The difference is that they pretend they don't.
Here's one: read Augustine's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3 and then read Chrysostom's.
Lest you think Orthodox can just handwave Augustine away, or Catholics can handwave Chrysostom,
>We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith.
-Second Council of Constantinople

>>18519039
just having different interpretations doesnt matter here and is expected everywhere, the difference is, theologically catolicism is fine here as is orthodoxy since they believe in tradition and that bishops can bind people to a specific belief that the people then have to follow.

>>18519054
>We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers

>>18519055
so whats your argument? that the church fathers contradicted? thats why christians had ecumenical councils

>>18519057
You gotta be kidding me, man.

>>18519059
women and autists both think that people should read their minds in every interaction.

>>18519031
I didn't use AI

>he then also gave the literal same ability to all other apostoles
Source?
>you cant both believe that jesus took on specifically the unique human nature and all the things that he did with it on the cross while at the same time believing that, actually, humans can theoretically evolve into crabs in a billion years or whatever and all life forms are basically constantly transitioning into other things slowly and can interbreed/overlap etc
You actually can

>>18519162
>Source?
matthew 18 18
>You actually can
not an argument

>>18519167
Few verses after that Peter replies, so maybe it was directed to him? And even if other disciples also received binding and loosening power the verse about building his Church on Peter is pretty clear

>>18519182
no, there is absolutely nothing akin to the powers of the pope talked about in Vatican II in the scriptures, pasting what i wrote long ago on this:

Basically, vatican 1 and 2 speak about the absolute superiority of the pope on earth as almost the figure of god emperor on earth. You have to be in communion with the pope if you want to be saved. You need the pope

And yet, aside from this not being how the church operated within the first 1000 years, recently, the pope has approved the vatican's Alexandria and Chieti documents which admit many of the orthodox arguments against catholicism, including this one, by saying that indeed, the pope did not exercise any of his powers really within the first 1000 years, and not any in the east. While at the same time admitting, like many times before, that the orthodox have actually preserved the fullness of the christian faith, that they have a proper eucharist etc, without the pope

Within vatican 1 and 2, there is also a statement for example that no one judges the first see and that the pope is above all, including the ecumenical councils, and yet, multiple popes were condemned, both by councils and by other popes as literal heretics, despite the pope, by catholic dogma, being unable to be a heretic, otherwise the catholic system would collapse. Since, you can't have a heretic lead the church, of course, and yet, they did

There are many dogmatic contradictions which many different popes commited, from affirming the death penalty as biblical to nowadays stating that its literally "against the gospel". From condeming homosexual relationships to now being able to "bless" all gay relationships. Saying that muslims belive the same God as christians do, despite allah having no sons, while Jesus is the Son of God. Literally praying with muslims in mosques towards mecca, kissing the quran, while interfaith gatherings being forbidden and crusades called against muslims previously, and many, many more.

>>18519199
>there is absolutely nothing akin to [.... what was] talked about in Vatican II in the scriptures
Makes sense. The Catholic church doesn't claim that everything should be justified in the Bible, that's the Protestant position. What I said was that the Scripture shows how Jesus Christ built his Church on Peter, the first bishop of Rome.

>>18519268
>The Catholic church doesn't claim that everything should be justified in the Bible
it does claim that the pope is basically god emperor on earth that is above ecumenical councils for example as mentioned and yet that is nowhere in history nor tradition within the first 1k years either.

File: Ex cathedra.jpg (8 KB, 225x225)

8 KB JPG

>>18519276
>For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! Therefore do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed, we pray that they may be changed.
"Rome has spoken, the matter is settled"
Sermon CXXXI by Augustine of Hippo

>The only ex cathedra application of papal infallibility since its solemn declaration has been for the Marian Dogma of Assumption in 1950.

>>18518926
I propose that if the Pope can not turn the bread and wine into flesh and blood then they have lost God's favor.

>>18519472
The Holy Spirit does that every mass

>>18518926
>The Bible-only doctrine naturally leads to the path of fundamentalist interpretation, but current scientific findings challenge a literalist understanding of the Bible
Yet for some reason, the Catholic Church sticks to a literal interpretation of Genesis, of a group of gods(plural) ruled over by a high god creating a man in their image to tend their gardens(share similarities with mesopotamian myths), giving that man a woman helper, telling them not to eat from the tree of good and bad(not evil, the tree gave its eater the ability to discern what's precious and what's worthless, to differentiate between a jewel and a pebble) lest they die(lying to them), the serpent telling them the actual truth that they won't die but instead gain wisdom, Adam and Eve eating from the tree, the gods(again, plural) becoming scared that Adam and Eve will usurp them, deciding to kick them out of Eden before they eat from the tree of eternal life, thus attaining immortality and the power to usurp the gods.

The Catholic Church believes in a literal interpretation of that old Israelite creation myth, it derives its teachings on original sin from that myth.

>>18519561
>the Catholic Church sticks to a literal interpretation of Genesis
Catechism of the Catholic church:
>390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

>lest they die(lying to them),
They literally died because of that, there was no lie

File: IMG_8490.jpg (115 KB, 1488x312)

115 KB JPG

>>18519646
>They literally died because of that,
Because the gods kicked them out of Eden before they ate from the tree of immortality, the actual tree of good and bad wasn't poisonous to them, it gave them wisdom which the gods intentionally kept them ignorant of. Were it not for the gods jealously protecting the exclusivity of their divine club, Adam and Eve would have attained godhood too. The story of the fall in genesis is the story of god kings preventing their underlints from an usurping their power.

If the Catholic Church believes the story of the fall really took place, then why does it ignore the blatantly self-interested motive for the banishment from eden?

File: Catechism Part 1 Section (...).png (3.52 MB, 7508x7273)

3.52 MB PNG

>>18519646
* (paragraph 7 was lacking)

>>18519663
>the actual tree of good and bad wasn't poisonous to them
Source? Acknowledging that the tree of life gives you eternal life does not preclude the affirmative that the tree of knowledge gives you death. You are assuming they died because they would've died anyway if they didn't eat from the tree of life but that isn't stated nor implied in the text

>If the Catholic Church believes the story of the fall really took place, then why does it ignore the blatantly self-interested motive for the banishment from eden?
>>18519665

>>18519673
Eating from the tree of knowledge wasn't immediately poisonous, assuming that Adam and Eve stuck around in Eden for the admonishment if the gods, and in any case, its also assumed that they lived long enough to have children on Earth after their banishment. So if the tree "poisonous" its effects were delayed by several decades.

And secondly, why didn't the gods let Adam and Eve eat from the tree of life, that would have made them immortal, saving them from any poisonous effects of the tree of knowledge. The Catholic Church's catechism, 399 paragraph 7 in the image you posted, says that Adam and Eve adopted a "distorted" jealous view of God as being jealous, but that's exactly how the gods are acting, they kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden just to stop them from eating from the tree of life and becoming gods also.

Lastly, there's no mention in the story of the fall of the serpent being the devil or satan or lucifer, it's written only as a serpent, one of many animals the gods created in Eden.

>>18518926
Your arguments are solid. Let me strengthen them with the Fathers.
On Tradition preceding Scripture: St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 180 AD) writes that many barbarian tribes have the faith "without paper and ink" because they received it through oral tradition from the apostles. He says if the apostles had left us no writings at all, we would still have the deposit of faith through succession. Scripture is the written form of a faith that was already being lived and preached.
On Peter's authority: Clement of Rome in 96 AD -- while John the Apostle was still alive -- wrote to the Corinthians exercising authority over a church he didn't found. He didn't ask permission. He commanded. The Corinthians preserved his letter and read it at Mass for centuries. Why would a church in Greece obey a bishop in Rome unless they recognized his authority? This is 30 years after Peter's death.
On the canon: you nailed it. The Church didn't "discover" the canon -- she discerned it. The same bishops who defined the Trinity at Nicaea are the ones who settled the canon. If their authority was valid for the Trinity, it's valid for the canon. You can't accept one and reject the other without special pleading.

>>18519783
Catholics are getting so desperate they're turning to slopposting

>>18518926
IMO the best argument against Protestantism is that if you recognize that the entire Biblical tradition was compiled via a Roman political committee, you have to throw out so much of the religion that neither Protestantism nor Orthodoxy/Catholicism have any ground to stand on. Which I agree with, but I don't see why you'd pursue this line of logic since you're presumably coming from the latter group.

>>18519684
>So if the tree "poisonous" its effects were delayed by several decades.
We are talking about mankind turning against God and becoming affected by mortality and you're trying to make a toxicological argument. Read these numbers again:
>390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, [...] the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
>396 [...] The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
Figurative language, symbolically evokes...
>why didn't the gods let Adam and Eve eat from the tree of life, that would have made them immortal, saving them from any poisonous effects of the tree of knowledge.
Because the story is about humanity using their free will to reject God, attempting to be like God without God and facing the consequences of its choice. God didn't punish anyone, the man separated himself from His Grace on his own volition. If God was to prevent him from doing so He would be working against the very free will He decided to give to man in the first place. Man had to suffer, but in the end, by God's unlimited mercy, He still gave a path to salvation to humanity, through Jesus Christ.
>The Catholic Church's catechism, 399 paragraph 7 in the image you posted, says that Adam and Eve adopted a "distorted" jealous view of God as being jealous, but that's exactly how the gods are acting
Read what the number before that says. In that context, it doesn't sound like a personal revenge to me. It sounds like an appropriate consequence.
>Lastly, there's no mention in the story of the fall of the serpent being the devil or satan or lucifer
"Everything should be stated in the Bible" is not the Catholic position >>18519268

>>18519816
>Roman political committee
Roman as in Catholic, or Imperial Roman?

File: quote-we-should-throw-the(...).jpg (45 KB, 850x400)

45 KB JPG

>>18518926
>Sola Scriptura
>No, not that one

>>18519865
this is the most quote-mined misconstrued man on earth.
if youve read luther you'd notice his hyper-rhetorical style which means its extremely easy to take any single sentence out of context.

>>18519868
Here's the context:

>“We should throw the epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did.”

>>18519865
He's right. James should be removed as apocrypha. There isn't any serious evidence it was written by *the* James. No one who knew the Apostles vouches for it unlike the Gospels, Paul's letters, 1 Peter, and 1 John and Revelation. All of those have direct endorsement from the Apostolic Circle. The book of James does not. There's no reason to think it wasn't written by some random Jacob/James and someone mistook it for the best-known James.

>>18519869
that's not the context.
can you even find the exact source of the quote?
some of them are just outright fabrications.

but having read many of Luther's canonical works, he freely quotes from James as being sacred scripture.
Don't use "AI" to find the source. Go ahead and actually try to look it up. You won't find it. There are many such Luther quotes which are just entirely fictional.

>>18519468
>"Rome has spoken, the matter is settled"
nope

https://files.catbox.moe/2jyvjb.webm

One of the topics of the fourth ecumenical council investigated the issue with Theodoret’s teachings and writings despite the fact that Pope Leo already did previously. The importance of this is that the Roman Catholic claim that the Pope had universal jurisdiction and authority in the entire Church, not just Rome, is obviously not true if the council decided to investigate the issue itself, instead of just accepting the Popes decision that was made before the Council. The irony of the clip is the Roman Catholic priest is admitting to the other Roman Catholic apologist and audience, that the first millennium of the Church did not actually act in the way Vatican I and modern Rome claims it did.

File: Martin Luther.png (377 KB, 747x973)

377 KB PNG

>>18519880
cope.

LUTHER’S WORKS
VOLUME 54

1967 by Fortress Press
Library of Congress Catalogue Number 55-9893
Printed in the United States of America 1-354

>Don't use "AI" to find the source. Go
I used google search which of course is a form of "AI" used to index information, does that count you dickless faggot or you want me to go pull a physical copy from the Library of Congress?

>>18520561
Luther's Table Talk is entirely second hand writing.
:/
you can be mad I guess but it appears he recanted of this belief. in his canonical works he treats James as scripture.

>>18519561
>>18519663
You're confusing Protestant fundamentalism with Catholic teaching. The Church never taught a literal six-day creation. Augustine of Hippo, writing in 400 AD, explicitly taught that the six days of Genesis were not temporal periods. From De Genesi ad Litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis): the days are a logical framework, not a chronological sequence. God created everything in a single instant; the "days" describe angelic knowledge of creation, not 24-hour periods. This is not a modern retreat from science. This is the Doctor of Grace in the 5th century.

The Catechism (CCC 390) says Genesis 3 uses "figurative language" but affirms a "primeval event." The Church requires belief in an actual first couple and an actual fall. It does not require belief that the days were 24 hours or that the earth is 6000 years old. That's 19th-century Protestant fundamentalism, which is younger than the theory of evolution.

On the plural language ("let us make man"): the Church reads this as a hint of the Trinity, not a pantheon. This reading predates Christianity itself (Philo of Alexandria, a Jew, read the plural as God addressing his powers or the angels). Catholic hermeneutics uses four senses (CCC 115-119): literal (what the author intended, including genre), allegorical (points to Christ), moral (what you should do), anagogical (where you're going). The "literal" sense is not "literalistic." It asks what genre the author chose. Genesis 1-11 is not a science textbook and was never read as one.

The Church produced the scientists who discovered the Big Bang (Fr. Georges Lemaitre) and founded genetics (Fr. Gregor Mendel). It didn't produce young-earth creationists. That's a Protestant innovation, and a recent one. The confusion comes from assuming all Christianity is American evangelicalism. It's not.

File: Screenshot 2026-06-09 at (...).png (40 KB, 897x264)

40 KB PNG

>>18519871
>No one who knew the Apostles vouches for it unlike the Gospels
Irenaeus who you used to justify the gospels quotes from James, even new advent agrees with this. So clearly it should have authority for you even if that is true

File: 1769477305788256.png (105 KB, 1136x700)

105 KB PNG

>>18521504
He's not even the only early authority using the text. So it clearly seems you just have a personal problem with the work

>>18521504
>Irenaeus who you used to justify the gospels quotes from James
He doesn't say there that he's quoting anything. Irenaeus will say something like "scripture says..." or "this writer says...".

Most likely both are echoing a common saying or stock argument used often. Jubilees 19:9 for example calls Abraham a friend of God: https://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/19.htm

Notice how Irenaeus says after this that what he's quoting is "in Deuteronomy" and says nothing earlier when making the comment on Abraham? He isn't shy about identifying his quotes.

I think they're both probably just using some stock argument or comment. It would be very odd if the one and only time Irenaeus gets anything from James is a single quote that he (contrary to his routine practice, even in the very same paragraph) doesn't identify as a quote and is saying something we have other documents saying about Abraham.

You yourself essentially confirm this in >>18521530 when you bring forth another source that has this and only this in common from James.

>>18518926
>Scripture can't take precedence over apostolic Tradition

This is wrong on so many levels. The Scripture has that famous passage that says roughly that if any other creature, if even an angel from heaven comes to you with any other gospel than that which you have received, let him be accursed. What we can logically conclude from this is that scripture takes precedence over every single authority on earth. The angels of heaven are a higher authority than any person living on earth or any tradition on earth. So if scripture (the source of the gospel) takes precedence over even those angels, it logically also takes precedence over anything earthly.

>Jesus Christ explicitly said that St. Peter would lead his Church and he would have the authority to bind and loose from earth to heaven
Peter told people not to worship him because he's also just a man. Today, people would bow down and worship the catholic pope. This proves that the pope can not be Peter's successor.

>The Protestant Bible is missing 7 books in the Old Testament because they have been rejected by Jews some 1 or 2 centuries after the ministry of Jesus Christ
Literally irrelevant since God said that his words will be preserved in multiple places and passages of Scripture.

>The Bible-only doctrine naturally leads to the path of fundamentalist interpretation, but current scientific findings challenge a literalist understanding of the Bible
This is why the Bible talks about a concept called "science falsely so called." There is such a thing as fake science that people take to be real.

>>18519031
>also 1 Timothy 3:15 "the church is the pillar and ground of truth"
It's talking about your local church where you go on sundays. Nowhere did it mention universal church or catholic church in that verse. A local church is the pillar and ground of the truth because this is what supports the truth. By going to church you get reverse brainwashed from all the goyslop and bullcrap that the world is full of. It's where you get the truth.

File: Reformation.jpg (49 KB, 700x501)

49 KB JPG

So to summarize, all of OP’s arguments are “I don’t believe the bible”
>1
This is false both historically and theologically. The bible was not “compiled” by a bunch of guys in funny hats some time in the 300s, the recognition of the biblical canon occurred gradually and naturally over hundreds of years. The first time somebody claimed the authority to “decide” the biblical canon, let alone claiming to actually do this, was in 1546 at the Council of Trent. Before then the very idea of what you’re describing was foreign.

Not only did this not happen, it could not, because guys in funny hats do not have authority to put words in God’s mouth nor take them away. What happened at Trent is epistemically worthless, and adds not one jot to the authority of the scriptures. Either they have full authority by sole virtue of the inspiration of God, or they are not the word of God and the Christian religion is false.
>2
This is an abuse of scripture which is normally based on personal ignorance of the text. Christ gave this authority not to Peter alone, but all of the apostles and every subsequent elder (Matt 18:18-20). Nor is the authority to bind and loose the authority to usurp God (as the pope has done), but the authority to promise forgiveness of sins or pronounce judgement against sin. It is the binding and loosing of persons from the chains of slavery. In the entire New Testament, as well as extra biblical writing for hundreds of years, there is exactly 0 reference to an office of pope of Rome. Paul makes no reference to it, Peter makes no reference to it, John makes no reference to it, 1 Clement, the Didache etc. make no reference to it because they never heard of such a thing.
(1/3)

I think the best argument is Ephesians 2:8-10
>For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Oh wait

File: Reformation wall.jpg (173 KB, 900x600)

173 KB JPG

>3
This is erroneous in several ways. First, it is an example of the begging the question fallacy, because the assertion it is “missing” these books presupposes they were supposed to be there, the very question at issue. The sole reason you accept these books is by virtue of the tyrannical decree of the papal Antichrist, which cannot justify the authenticity of any so-called scripture as discussed above. You also contradict your previous claim about the biblical canon, by acknowledging its existence at this period of history before the supposed council. How did the Jews know what the canon of scripture is? Now, it is also untrue that there was no consensus. This is an oft-repeated fable, but those who told you this were lying. It is now recognized that the Jews as a whole received a biblical canon in 22 books well before the birth of Jesus Christ (see for example the canon of Josephus in Against Apion), which is identical to our own Old Testament canon albeit reckoned differently. Now what there was not one of was the Septuagint, which is a term generally applied to any Greek versions of the scriptures coming from a certain time period. While some early manuscripts did include the the apocrypha, the assumption that they must have therefore been regarded as holy scripture is false. Protestant bibles also contained the apocrypha until the 19th century. There are manifold reasons to reject the canonicity of the apocryphal books as well as the apocryphal additions to canonical books, which is why many, many Christians before the Reformation did so.

File: the_holy_bible.jpg (3.2 MB, 2298x2297)

3.2 MB JPG

>4
This is little more than the proclamation of your unbelief and captivity to the wisdom of the world. The holy scriptures never say earth is flat and you are a perverse heathen for implying they do. Let everyone focus, for here you have given abundant proof of Rome’s opposition to the Christian religion. The holy scriptures are truly divinely inspired, but these means nothing other than that every single word is the very speech of God Himself, as surely as Moses heard it on the mountain. This book is the supreme authority about everything of which it speaks, and it speaks about everything.
(3/3)

>>18519468
>"Rome has spoken, the matter is settled"
Note that this phrase, in Latin “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” appears in none of Augustine’s authentic writings.

>>18521823
I know, I posted the actual quote in greentext. That sentence is like a summary of what he said there

>>18519468
>The only ex cathedra application of papal infallibility
I keep hearing this version, another one with two occasions and some claiming that it has never been invoked, and that the exact formalisms aren't set, so they can backpedal out of it at any time.

>>18519646
>They literally died because of that, there was no lie
do you have difficulty understanding the expression "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die", or are you engaged in complex mental gymnastics over the meaning of "in the day"?

>>18519880
>Don't use "AI" to find the source.
can you explain the reasons behind this demand of yours? because right now you sound rather desperate and/or too stupid to understand that once we have the source, it does not matter how we have found it.
or maybe you are unclear about what "source" even means?

>>18521823
note that 'est' is completely superfluous in the version you rendered, reads like broken Latin and is missing in every reference to the quote in literature. did you just google-translate it back from English to sound erudite?

>>18521741
1. Gospel is the English translation of Evangelium, the Greek word for Good News and its original source was the ministry of Jesus Christ, not written words. In Galatians, Paul is warning that community against the "judaizers" who were distorting the Christian message and demanding stuff like circumcision.
>So if scripture (the source of the gospel)
You are the one assuming this. As I said before, Jesus was the source of the gospel. Also, according to the Catholic church, apostolic Tradition transmits the gospel too (CCC 75-79). Again, "gospel" is the Good News, not just the four gospels, the pauline letters are also preaching the gospel, for example (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Look at what Jesus Christ referred to as gospel: Matthew 24:12-14, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 4:43.

2. Catholics don't "worship" the pope

3. Elaborate

4. Oh, so you're a flat earther?

>>18518926
As long as Catholicism remains a goddess worshipping cult there isn’t any argument. Protestants are the only Christians left. You people are literally worshipping a hole in direct disobedience of the most important law. Heresy and blasphemy don’t even cover it, you just simply are not Christian.

>>18521787
>The first time somebody claimed the authority to “decide” the biblical canon, let alone claiming to actually do this, was in 1546 at the Council of Trent. Before then the very idea of what you’re describing was foreign.
Council of Rome (382), Council of Hippo (393), Council of Carthage (397)

>Christ gave this authority not to Peter alone
Christ explicitly founds his Church on Peter.
>as well as extra biblical writing for hundreds of years, there is exactly 0 reference to an office of pope of Rome.
Pope is just another name for the bishop of Rome.
>1 Clement [...] make no reference to it because they never heard of such a thing.
He is speaking in the name of the church in Rome, giving orders to the church in Corinth (1Clem 57, 1Clem 63)

>>18521790
>You also contradict your previous claim about the biblical canon, by acknowledging its existence at this period of history before the supposed council. How did the Jews know what the canon of scripture is?
Huh? Jewish canon =/= Christian canon. There wasn't a consensus during the time preceding the coming of Christ and during His ministry. They couldn't decide on a canon by then and if they finaly decided on it after we received the Good News teached by Christ then those are internal Jewish matters that should no longer concern Christians.
>It is now recognized that the Jews as a whole received a biblical canon in 22 books well before the birth of Jesus Christ (see for example the canon of Josephus in Against Apion)
This was written after the ministry of Jesus Christ so I don't care

>>18521792
>The holy scriptures are truly divinely inspired, but these means nothing other than that every single word is the very speech of God Himself, as surely as Moses heard it on the mountain. This book is the supreme authority about everything of which it speaks, and it speaks about everything.
No, they were books written by imperfect human beings with limited knowledge. There are factual mistakes on the Bible if you try to interpret it literally. Historical inaccuracies, a solid firmament, an immovable earth. Your theological worldview is that of a Muslim lol

>>18522293
Just to be clear. The Catholic position is that Scripture is divinely inspired and it certainly contains sacred truths. But it was also written by human beings that either could not or didn't even intend to produce perfectly accurate scientific literature or to write with perfect accuracy about everything. If you try to guide yourself on everything written there using a literalistic interpretation like a Muslim reading the Quran you are bound to incur in mistakes. This Protestant view, dominant in the US and therefore propagated to the whole world, is the reason why so many critics of Christianity try to argue against our religion nitpicking passages in the Bible and trying to debunk them ignoring the important moral and theological lessons. You are doing a disservice to the message of Christ when you choose to behave like the Muslim version of Christians

>>18521741
>What we can logically conclude from this is that scripture takes precedence over every single authority on earth.
not just on earth but even divine

>>18521779
>Nowhere did it mention universal church or catholic church in that verse
i made the point in order to respond to op and add more anti-protestant arguments, protestants dont believe the church is the pillar and ground of truth, that was the point.

also, christ is the head of the church, and the church is seen as the body of christ, christ created 1 church, not 10000 denominations that disagree, therefore there has to be one church.

catholicity means that the church has the wholeness of the faith, not numbers, it cant mean numbers since there were many crisis moment especially early on in the church where the majority was wrong, for example the arian crisis, iconoclasts etc.

anyway, all of my arguments are meant to specifically defeat the positions presented here directly, if you couldn't tell from my initial comment: >>18519031
>evolution debooonks all christian denominations as you cant both believe that jesus took on specifically the unique human nature and all the things that he did with it on the cross while at the same time believing that, actually, humans can theoretically evolve into crabs in a billion years or whatever and all life forms are basically constantly transitioning into other things slowly and can interbreed/overlap etc

i dont believe in any of the christian denominations or any known religions. i think either they can all be proven false, or in the case of eastern orthodoxy, they can't prove that they are actually true.

>>18520572
>you can be mad I guess but it appears he recanted of this belief.
This was from 1542. He died 4 years later in 1546.