Church simply means called out, those that are saved
Perhaps in your Protestant twisting of the word, but the Greek word for Church, "ekklesia", according to the Greek Lexicon, means:
1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
3) The whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
4) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
Nowhere does it refer to those "called out" or "already saved". Thus, if we intend on speaking the same language used by the Scripture, you will have to change your meaning of "church". Note definition #2 - HOPING FOR SALVATION. Why is hope mentioned in the NT if salvation is assured to all?
You hope for salvation. I have salvation.
Unless you are writing this post from heaven, you aren't saved by MY definition. Nor are you "saved" in the full sense of the word from the Scripture. It is clear if you were to read 1 Cor 10 and Hebrews 3 that NO ONE should presume that their eternal destiny is already arranged. It is clear from Scriptures that we CAN lose our faith and fall away, disinheriting ourselves from heaven. Our definition of "saved" refers to eternal salvation. It sounds like you are talking about the Catholic concept of Justification. We are justified initially upon Baptism. If we continue in Christ, we will continue to be justified (righteous in God's eyes). With perseverance and grace from God, we know we will enter heaven. But NO ONE can say that they are absolutely certain they are going to heaven while they walk this earth. That is presumption that is frowned on in the Gospels over and over.
Your quote on 1 John 1:9 tells me that we must confess our sins. TO WHOM??? JOHN HIMSELF tells us to the Apostles in his Gospel...Do you see what I mean about your reading of the Scripture? You take it out of context, and that is why you have a difficult time accepting the Catholic Church.
it is another gospel to exclude any function of Christ from salvation.
Of course it is. But who says that the Catholic Church excludes Jesus from Salvation? Do I need to list quotes from the Catechism to prove you wrong again? Why the false dichotomy? The Church doesn't teach that it offers salvation WITHOUT Christ! Like I said before, if we are "brothers", you should learn more about what I believe. It is publically accessible to all. Read it and see for yourself what the Church teaches, not what your pastor tells you so as to keep you on his list of benefactors.
Christ established a church. The RCC assume he was talking about it.
So did the early Church Fathers. There was only ONE orthodox Church for the first millenium, and it had Peter's successor as its visible spiritual leader. HE was given the keys, the responsibility to Christ to feed His sheep. This was well known and accepted by all. Can you point me to another Christian Church that possesses this "key", this responsibility to feed the Sheep? Only in the Catholic Church does one find the FULLNESS of the truth. Other communities can be vehicles of God's grace, but they lack parts that Christ gave His Church, namely, the responsibility to feed the sheep.
Apostolic succession is not supported by Paul, he is the exception. The RCC assume Paul was given this succession with out proof.
You haven't read the Pastorals, have you? It is clear that Paul is telling Timothy to continue the teachings that Timothy was given, to hold onto them, and so forth. What more proof do you desire that Apostolic Succession exists? It is clearly noted in the very first writings of Christians outside of the Scriptures, such as 1 Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, and Justin the Martyr.
Anathema is the word used in the council of Trent.
Again, you need to find out what Rome means by the word "anathema". It doesn't cast anyone into hell, and it only applies to those who are willfully preaching the matter with full knowledge they are contradicting the Church. Thus, some Protestant who is blissfully ignorant of the Catholic stance on the matter is not "anathema-ed". People are excommunicated from the Church of Christ - by their own actions, just as Paul states in 1 Cor 5...
The recognition of scripture is an office of the Holy Spirit given to all believers that will allow Him to show them. The principles that are given to recognize scripture are clear and consistent.
That's funny. Then why was their disagreement BEFORE the canon was implemented in the late 300's? If the Spirit is infusing everyone on the face of the earth with this knowledge, there wouldn't have been a need for someone to authoritatively rule on its content. However, the Spirit doesn't work that way, but works through His Church, ordinarily. I would like to hear your "clear and consistent" principles that tell me that Scripture is self-authenticating. It is OBVIOUSLY NOT...
Your refusal to examine them or recognize them makes them no less accurate.
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I refuse to examine them. I have examined them and found them wanting. Does that make me unsaved, then? What is ironic about this is how open the Catholic Church is to the invincible ignorant, while your community of believers appear to be very inclusive and restrictive - you try to lock the doors of the kingdom, but you don't have the key. According to you, I might not even be Christian. I have never made that presumption of you, even though you are not Catholic. Are you seeing the difference here?
Regards