A big distinction between what you and I believe is that I think that the Bible is the final dispensation of the Truth given by God. You also believe that with a few caveats. You believe that there is a temporal authority that can issue edicts at different times to "update" your faith. I dont. It has no Biblical basis. You believe in demigods that have a short-cut to God, which again have no Biblical basis. Why put such emphasis on the Bible? Because in my faith that is the final dispensation of Truth from God. Until someone truly starts to perform miracles and updates my version of the Bible I will continue to believe so. You obviously believe that the guy in Rome has a direct line to God and He updates him from time to time on who to beatify and canonize to be his deputy. You may find that reasonable, I don't.
There are real problems in assigning mortals to be in direct touch with God. In a 100 years chances are we will have a liberal pope and a liberal college of Cardinals. What happens then? Would traditional Catholics start believing pro-abortion priests to be saints if they are so canonized. Imagine the case if one of these child rapist bishops ever get to become a saint. If you pray to him, you will be praying to someone in hell and the only person answering your prayers will be the Satan himself. It takes faith to believe in the Bible, but it takes a giant leap of faith to accept Catholic doctrine.
"I have heard that argument and it is pretty lame."
Interesting, if you heard it before, that you still have not formulated a response to it other than to cite your litany of problems with the Catholic Church, including imagined ones like the worship of demigods.
So let's cut to the chase, again. You wrote:
"I think that the Bible is the final dispensation of the Truth given by God."
I am asking you why you believe that.
The Bible does not say that.
If you think it does, I would like you to cite to the Biblical text in which the Bible, particularly the New Testament (your emphasis) is described, and then is described as the final authority.
You have placed final authority on the Bible.
That's fine, but you do not do so based on the Bible.
The New Testament does not say to do that.
It doesn't even come close.
To say that "all Scripture is God breathed", which is about the closest you will get to a text that supports your assertion of New Testament authority, is to beg the question: what is Scripture, and who defines what Scripture is?
You keep wanting to return to your attacks on the Catholic Church.
I note that I am not, in turn, attacking you.
I am demanding that you explain yourself.
You have placed your entire faith in the Bible.
Since the Bible does not say to do that, you got the notion to do that from somewhere non-Biblical. You got it from another man, and you are following that tradition of his quite uncritically, as regards yourself and your own faith, and rather viciously attacked the faith of others (and in many cases ignorantly -the demigods business is simply ridiculous, and it is not ignorant anymore either, because you have been informed by many here of the actual Catholic belief on saints, so now it is just stubborn error on your part).
It's fine that you follow the traditions of the men who taught you to view the Bible that way. There is a great tradition of that, spanning the centuries.
But it remains that: a tradition.
It's just silly to castigate one folks for HAVING a tradition when you so blatantly and uncritically reference your own.
Here is a question for you: if the New Testament is so utterly central, why do you suppose Jesus didn't write anything? Why do you suppose he left a Church, and not a bible dispensary?