Your argument is a misrepresentation. While it true that the printed Bible came out in the 15th century, which was because Gutenberg only invented the printing press in 1450, that does not equate to or sanction ignorance of Scripture any more than it did in the days of OT, when God commanded the Israelites that they set the "commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord your God commanded" forever before them, and to "teach them diligently unto thy children," (Dt. 6:1-9) and the righteous man was described as one whose "delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night," (Psalms 1:2) and numerous teachers for long periods "read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." (Nehemiah 8:8)
This does not mean the majority of the laity were literate, and in fact, unlike such bodies as the MA colonial government who mandated schools so that the populace would not be ignorant of the Scripture, promoting literacy in the Bible did not seem to be a priority form Rome, and she often hindered it.
However, Athanasius of Alexandria ( 298 - 373) listed the complete New Testament canon 27 books for the first time, and the translator Jerome (347 – 420) translated all of the Old and New, while John Chrysostom (347–407) exhorted the laity to "get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers...," and chastens the laity for presuming "the reading of the divine Scriptures" (not simply hearing) appertains to such as monks, while the laity needed it more, and marginalizing them was" far worse than not reading," The context of his of the exhortation in Ephesians is the home life, and on that he says not "hear" but "study the Scriptures," while on Col. 3:16 he exhorts "the reading of the Scriptures and that not to be done lightly, nor in any sort of way, but with much earnestness." More
Thus whether by reading and or hearing, literacy in Scripture was the goal, and it is abundantly evidenced that the Scriptures were the transcendent material standard for obedience and in establishing truth claims, and that the Lord claims of Christ and the apostles were established upon Scriptural attestation in word and in power, not appeal to an assuredly infallible magisterium.
Since most Christians for most of the time after Jesus didn’t have access to a Bible, have most Christians throughout history been “unBiblical”? Most Christians for most of history followed the voice of the Church.
You answered your own question. While not excluding that the body of Christ continued thru some members, as salvation requires more of the heart than the head, (Ps. 34:18) how else would Catholics agree to things from praying the departed to torturing and killing merely theological dissidents, if it were not because Rome has usurped the supernaturally established Scriptures as the supreme authority?
Or is your argument that being the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation mean you are the assuredly infallible interpreters of it, and that no one has spiritual authority apart from their sanction, or in opposition to it?
And wasn’t it the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit that settled on the books of the Bible in the first place?
And when did Rome provide an infallible, indisputable canon of Scripture? And does this mean all those who deviate from this have no legitimacy, or what does it mean?
When I’ve discussed these things with Protestants, they inevitably say the early Christians followed the Holy Spirit. But what happens when disagreements pop up.
And Rome is one church among many who claim that they uniquely followed the Holy Spirit correctly. What is the basis for your full assurance that Rome is the one true church?
Peter and Paul disagreed.
Yes, and they both disagreed with Rome. Tell me where either taught that the office of Peter was assuredly infallible, when speaking according to the infallible *scope and subject-based) criteria of Rome? (And what place in the kingdom of God do those have who disagree with that?)
Where did Peter or Paul refer to Peter as the supreme ruler of the church, or even remind them to pray for Peter as such, or teach that his chair and that of all the apostles were to be formally passed on?
Where did they or anyone example or teach to pray to anyone in heaven but God (without resorting to problematic extrapolation), or distinctively title pastors "priests," or that all clergy (with rare exceptions) were expected to have the gift of celibacy, etc.?
Following the Spirit without the Pope leads to what we have today, the scandal of 40,000 Christian denominations. Jesus wants us to be one with Him and the Father.
I can see that you are new here. In any case since your premise is that dissent from Rome and its pope negates ecclesiastical authenticity, what makes Rome the one true church over other particular sola ecclesia churches which also claim to be the one true church based upon their interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition? Again, what is the basis for your assurance?
Moreover, how can you claim greater unity than other particular churches, especially when Catholics can and do disagree on multiple things , besides the things they are not supposed to but are effectively allowed to (treating even the most liberal as members in life and in death), and her members testify to less unity in core truths and moral views than her evangelical counterparts?
Do you really think organizational structure and paper unity (and unity in error), and which requires implicit assent of faith is superior in quality to the unity of the Spirit resulting from a shared conversion and relationship with the Lord Jesus?
The reality is that there are disagreements and divisions under sola ecclesia as well as sola (or prima) Scriptura (Scripture being supreme), and the difference being in degrees, while the unity of the diverse growing NT church was not based on assured veracity as per Rome, much less her use of the sword, but upon Scriptural substantiation.
And which allows that they will be competition, but overcomes it by "manifestation of the truth in word and in power, (2Cor. 4:2) that it is the church of the living God, which the evangelical gospel has historically manifested far more than its institutionalized counterpart, Catholic or Protestant.
"For the kingdom of God is not in word [self-declaration], but in power. " (1 Corinthians 4:20) And "to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. " (Ecclesiastes 9:4)
As for your 40,000 Christian denominations parroted polemic, see here ,
“how else would Catholics agree to things ... (like) torturing and killing merely theological dissidents, if it were not because Rome has usurped the supernaturally established Scriptures as the supreme authority?”
Who decided which Scriptures were supernatural? Rome through a Council guided by the Holy Spirit. There were 300 or 400 books floating around. It was the Church guided by the Holy Spirit who threw out 300 or so books as merely human, though many of them were good as lesser spiritual reading. Rome decided upon the 72 books.(It’s not a coincidence that Jesus sent out 72 disciples.) How did Rome usurp that which She, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided upon in the first place? Also, the torturing and killing was a two way street. Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible when teaching on faith and morals. There are other decisions the Popes have made which the Church does not claim are infallible.
“And when did Rome provide an infallible, indisputable canon of Scripture?”
At a council where guided by the Holy Spirit, the Bishops and Cardinals whose authority can be traced directly to the Apostles agreed upon these books. You wouldn’t even have a Bible to read if not for this Council. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles. His name is always listed first in any list of the Apostles because he is the Rock, the Pope. Why did John wait at the entrance of the tomb for Peter to go in when he beat him there? Because Peter was and is the chief Shepherd. If they were equals, John would have just went in, but he didn’t. When Christians had a major divisive dispute around the year 100, they didn’t ask the final living Apostle John to settle the dispute. They didn’t search the Scriptures to settle the dispute. They appealed to Pope Clement in Rome and he ruled on and settled the dispute.
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it (Matthew 16).” Jesus founded one visible Church. Not 40,000 and counting. So-called spiritual unity is not enough. There must be a visible, recognizable Final authority.
“Do you really think organizational structure and paper unity (and unity in error), and which requires implicit assent of faith is superior in quality to the unity of the Spirit resulting from a shared conversion and relationship with the Lord Jesus?”
Where is this “shared unity” as Christians keep dividing themselves more and more? Without a Final Authority, even Christians are on the road to relativism. The relativism of I’ll decide what I like and what I don’t like. I’m sorry you think unity is so unimportant. We now have tons of Christians who defend incredible moral evils based on the idea that they and not Peter established by Jesus are the Final Authority. I’m tired of running into Christians who say in-vitro fertlization is okay because the words do not appear in the Bible. Those words do not appear in the Bible but the Pope teaches the principles from the Bible whereby in-vitro fertilization is condemned. Revelation 9:21 says the end time society will not repent of their “magic potions”. The Popes have taught from early on that these “magic potions” are early forms of contraceptives and abortifacients. But now most Catholics and Christians use abortifacient-contraceptives because they say I’m the final authority on what’s right and wrong and not the Pope. But they’re ignorant and may pay with their immortal souls. In my opinion the deification of one’s own opinion as the final authority has set the ground for the relativism destroying society.