Scripture does not owe it’s acceptance to ecclesiastical decree, which essentially ratified a “best sellers” list, but to the life changing and enduring power of the 66 books, while the rest remain in obscurity.
But even if we allow your copyright contention, your position of sola ecclesia is a grave error, not only that the Jews and N.T. writers were Mary praying Roman Catholics, but that those to whom Scripture is entrusted are infallible, and must be obeyed. The Jewish magisterium were demonstrably not infallible (and God raised up rejected prophets to reprove them, as Rome must be also), but according to your logic we must submit to their interpretation now.
And if you will contend that Rome has taken the place of the seat of Moses, then you must be able to furnish the same Scriptural substantiation that attests that the Jews were entrusted with the Scriptures, and thus Scripture must attest that thru Rome alone belongs “the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises” (Rm. 9:4).
But the Catholic doctrine of a perpetuated Petrine papacy critically fails to possess the explicit and implicit substantiation that the Holy Spirit is faithful to provide for other major doctrines of like critical nature, though even just one clear command from Paul in just one of his many church epistles to submit to Peter as it’s infallible singular head would do, along with a clear provision to the ordination of a succesor. Or one sentence from Peter referring to himself as the chief shepherd. Or perhaps a doctrinal statement that affirms Rome’s interpretation that Peter was the rock upon which the church is built, rather than “this rock” referring to his essential confession of who Christ is, and thus Christ Himself, and who Peter and Paul both explicitly affirm is the foundational stone of the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6-8). And to this i am sure others have also added their thoughts already.
In addition, if you seek to persuade us that Rome is the ultimately infallible one true church by reasoning from the Scriptures, which is a Biblical method (Act 17:2), the best you can hope for is a fallible decision, as such relies upon private human reasoning (Rome’s misappropiates of 2 Pet. 1:20 to disallow such itself shows she is not an infallible interpreter).
In reality, your contention for for sola ecclesia is that according to Rome’s interpretation, only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict.
I am afraid that I find your writing style very confusing, and am unsure exactly what you are saying. For that reason I must reluctantly decline to respond to your post.
Seventy-three.
But even if we allow your copyright contention, your position of sola ecclesia is a grave error...
What "copyright contention?" Who claimed sola ecclesia?
...not only that the Jews and N.T. writers were Mary praying Roman Catholics...
I didn't see that claimed anywhere either. Not Roman Catholics, just Catholics. The New Testament writers (Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, et al.) were Catholic.
...but that those to whom Scripture is entrusted are infallible, and must be obeyed.
Christ promised this.
“but that those to whom Scripture is entrusted are infallible, and must be obeyed.”
Once again I must point out that seeing that you obviously have a totally flawed understanding of infallibility why would I even consider anything else that you say?