That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Scripture tells us God's church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord are true. Is it logical to you that God's church, being the bulwark of truth, would sanction an activity or teaching that is contrary to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord, which are true?
It is arrogance to equate the Lord, who is expressly and manifestly declared to be perfect, - righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works - (Dt. 32:4; Job. 34:10; Psa. 147:15) with an institution which declares itself infallible, based upon its own “infallible” interpretation, and by such has indeed sanctioned things which are contrary to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord.
It is arrogance to think God's word is wrong in teaching that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
As stated before, one cannot justified praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, when that is all the Scriptures testify to, by command, exhortation and example
That's assuming that the members of His Church are bound to the man-made tradition of Sola Scripture as applied to a truncated version of Scripture.
nor can one justify a church law requiring that all the priests have the gift of celibacy (except Eastern converts).
It's not a doctrine of the Church, it is a voluntary discipline. You are also misled on the "Eastern converts" restriction. Exceptions can also be made for those converting from Western religions, e.g. Anglicanism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, as long as they are already married.
Of course, Bishops and Elders constituted one pastoral office, (Titus 1:5-7) and they were not ordained as a separate class of sacerdotal priests, but in this respect were part of the general priesthood of all believers, as Peter declares.
That's your interpretation.
rather than relying on the only tangible source which is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, unspoken tradition is made equal with Scripture
The Church was and is inspired by God. Scripture is a tradition from that Church.
while Rome’s magisterium effectively reigns supreme over both, if it does say so itself.
It's not Rome's magisterium, but the Church's.
Only by such an unprovable and extraBiblical basis can the Rome can claim it is not contradicting the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord.
The Church is not contradicting the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord. Your may see the basis as extraBiblical but the vast majority of Christianity doesn't. Besides, extraBiblical is a constraint only for those abiding by the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura.
Dominican priest, Patrologist and author Boniface Ramsey, confesses this difficulty:
There's no difficulty. Do you hold Boniface Ramsey as infallible?
This led to invoking an expansive concept of “the development of doctrine”, in which a germ of error from the past, such as some vague idea of suffering, or disadvantage, or punishment for believers after this life allows them to justify the unBiblical doctrine of purgatory.
The doctrine of Purgatory did not develop from some germ of error in the past. Even though you interpret it as unBiblical, we do not. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is what's unBiblical.
>Scripture tells us God’s church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.>
This is your defense? All you are doing is requiring unsubstantiated faith in Rome’s supremacy.
>Do you hold Boniface Ramsey as infallible?<
No, but you rely upon your fallible understanding of 1Tim. 3:15 to counter my requiring proof from that body of literature which, unlike the church, and the church of Rome, is explicitly declared to be wholly infallible. (2Tim. 3:16)
As for 1Tim. 3:15, this proof texts requires other texts for interpretation, (see response in post 96 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2404901/posts?page=96#96). “Pillar and ground of the truth” does not make it the truth, much less qualify only Rome as the church referred to, or place the church beyond reproof at any time, even if she declares herself so.
>Is it logical to you that God’s church, being the bulwark of truth, would sanction an activity or teaching that is contrary to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord, which are true?<
Yes, as history shows and as Israel, to whom (unlike Rome) Scripture expressly states were given stewardship of the Scriptures existing then, did teach for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mt. 15:1-9) But God always preserves a remnant - including using real prophets types who are usually rejected by the established Majisterium - and which stand in contrast to the vast multitudes of religious professors.
That the church is to defend the truth is sure (Jude 1:3), and God does preserve the the true believers, which constitute the church, in essential faith, but the issue is whether one formal church in particular can declare that it is infallible when it speaks under certain conditions, which fits the condition in which it declared itself infallible, and under which condition it renders that its interpretation of why it is infallible, to be itself infallible. And thus by such it disallows itself from being wrong. Not only does this apply to its interpretation of Scripture, but to terms such a “unanimous assent of the fathers.” In addition, its history of an already problematic “unbroken succession” of popes, includes those who Scripturally would not even qualify as church members. As said before.
>It is arrogance to think God’s word is wrong in teaching that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.<
No, it is arrogance to suppose this refers to Rome, and its self-proclaimed supreme powers which you rely on, and that it cannot teach falsely, despite the evidence. You are going in circles.
>That’s assuming that the members of His Church are bound to the man-made tradition of Sola Scripture as applied to a truncated version of Scripture.<
No, even holding simply to prima Scriptura, and requiring Scriptural proof for doctrines, as so many of the early fathers, is enough to refute the idea that a practice (praying to angels, Mary, etc.) is unwarranted and unScriptural. But as all proofs contrary to Rome MUST be dismissed due to her requirement of sola ecclesia then no proofs are sufficient.
>It’s [priestly celibacy] not a doctrine of the Church, it is a voluntary discipline.<
I stated that it was church law, and while it is voluntary to be a priest, what i stated was that it is required that all the priests have the gift of celibacy, exceptions for converts understood, but which is not supported by Scripture.
>That’s your interpretation.<
As is Rome’s interpretation to the contrary. Now lets act more like noble Bereans and search the Scriptures to see if this is so, and require Rome to act like Jesus and the apostles and substantiate this by Scripture, and appeal to human reasoning. (Mt. 12:3-6; Acts 18:28:23; 2Cor. 4:2) But that would make Rome subservient to the Scriptures. As it is, you cannot show me anywhere that bishops and elders were not the same, as Titus 1:5-7 shows, Elder denoting the dignity, and bishop the duties of his office.
>The Church was and is inspired by God. Scripture is a tradition from that Church.<
As with Israel, the church exists by faith in the truth, all of which is tested by the Scriptures, as seen therein. And while, like Israel, the word of God was expanded thru it, and is expounded by it now, yet like Israel, it is subject to that which it written, and cannot add unScriptural doctrine, and is not infallible. And unlike the natural branches, the church is not bound to one particular formal organic union, nor is its authenticity based upon “correct” lineage, but demonstrable Scriptural faith.
If your solution to these problems is to require a prior assent to Rome’s supremacy, as your responses show, as private interpretation is disallowed, then you have nothing. to add.