Am I supposed to understand that as a veiled affront on the Church as somehow "not" being biblically referenced? If so, you are embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarassed. :)
I have a copy of the RCC catechism and some of the doctrines are not biblically referenced.
a living fossil
You mean you don't sing new choruses and jingles?
My opinions are actually not all over the map. They may seem so to those who are not familiar with Orthodoxy. On occasion I will reference it to official doctrine, but I am not here to do everyone's homework. My job is not to evangelize Christians.
Also, some of my opinions are not supported by the Church. I express them as my opinions. If they are not what the Church teaches, I presume error on my part. I still want to know why.
I have a copy of the RCC catechism and some of the doctrines are not biblically referenced.
That's because you are not using the Bible the Church used form the beginning. Most of the praxis of the Church is carryover form Judaism. Next thing you will tell me that's not biblical either.
You mean you don't sing new choruses and jingles?
No we don't. We love it the way it was established. It's timelessness, not trendiness. Would you want to change your parents every 10 years or so?
Nice seeing you again.
The Catechism is indeed a layered cake. Often, a reference is to another document, which no doubt makes mention of five more, before you get to the scriptural reference. This is because Catholic doctrines synthesize the deposit of fath of which the scripture is but a component. To connect a doctrine to the supporting scripture it is often easier to go to a Catholic apologetic source that would defend the doctrine rather than merely explain what it is.