Until that realization happens, Roman church members will continue their condescending "they just don't understand" attitude.
Uh, no. Bethelgrad may be correct, but not in the way that he imagines (nor are you).
I don't believe you can find a quote where I said that the Latin Church (you call it the Roman Church) is the Catholic Church. If you can, please cite it.
Secondly, I believe that any of the posters here who are members of any of the historic, apostolic, particular churches will agree with this statement...
The problem is, at least based upon conversations I've had with my Protestant friends, is that they do not comprehend that there is one Church and that is that (cf 1 cor 3:1-5, 1 cor 12:12ff, Eph 5:27, etc.). Jesus Christ is the head of that Church and is the bridegroom of that Church (cf Eph 5:23). He installed Peter as his "prime minister," to deal with the temporal issues relating to that Church (Matt 16:19, cf Isa 22:20-23). Additionally, they do not comprehend the concept of Apostolic succession (cf Acts 1:15ff, and many other examples of episcopal ordinations, cf 2 Ti 1:6, Acts 20:28, etc.).
The only area of even the slightest disagreement is the role of the See of Peter. And that disagreement is slight. But we all (that is those who are part of the historic, apostolic, Church) agree that Rome has the first order of precedence, followed by Constantinople (as the new Rome). How do I know this? Because my Orthodox brethren support the ecumenical councils that so state (cf., Chalcedon Can. XXVIII, 1 Constantinople Can III, 2 Nicea Can IV "...For Peter the supreme head of the Apostles commands...).
See, the problem is not a Biblically-based disagreement. The problem is that the private interpretation of the Bible (strongly discouraged by 2 Pet 1:20) has led generations of people astray from the true, apostolic Faith. And succeeding generations have become more and more blind to that fact until they actually are silly enough to believe in their hearts of hearts that the apostolic church is the one that is apostate. It's really sort of sad when you think about it.
I would suggest you consider the following passage of scripture:
Peace.2Ti 3:1 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress.
2Ti 3:2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good,
2Ti 3:4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
2Ti 3:5 holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people.
2Ti 3:6 For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses,
2Ti 3:7 who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
2Ti 3:8 As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;
2Ti 3:9 but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.
OK. I wrote "Roman Church", and I meant "Roman Churcn." By "Roman Church", I mean all those who consider the bishop of Rome to be the head of the Catholic Church, and are in communion with the Church of Rome. This would include some non Latin rite bodies, and would exclude some Latin rite bodies. Perhaps I have missed something, but is it not doctrine of the church headquartered at Rome that it is the Catholic Church?
Secondly, I believe that any of the posters here who are members of any of the historic, apostolic, particular churches will agree with this statement...
There you go again, using terms with the implicit assumption that everyone agrees on their meaning ... regular Baptists believe that they are historic, apostolic, and particular, and that the Roman cburch is not ...
is that they do not comprehend that there is one Church and that is that Jesus Christ is the head of that Church and is the bridegroom of that Church
The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
He installed Peter as his "prime minister," to deal with the temporal issues relating to that Church
Only the Orthodox come even close to agreeing with this doctrine, and if "that disagreement is slight", it has been been a major bone of contention in a 1000 year schism. Understanding - and disagreement.
they do not comprehend the concept of Apostolic succession
No problem with comprehension. But while Orthodox, Anglican, and Old Catholic groups agree (and claim apostolic succession themselves), none of the pre-reformation, other reformation, or post-reformation groups believes that apostolic succession is necessary or even desirable. Understanding - and disagreement.
The problem is that the private interpretation of the Bible (strongly discouraged by 2 Pet 1:20)
I assume you are aware that there is disagreement on the meaning of 2 Pet 1:20. Understanding - and disagreement.
In regard to your quotes from 2nd Timothy, there is of course diagreement over to whom they apply.