Can you verify this via actual Church documents? Let's remember your opinion and the opinions of other non-catholics hold little sway when compared to the Church.
By the way, Jesus defined his life by the Scriptures and rebuked Peter for suggesting He not follow what was written.
No, the scripture is defined by Christ: He is the ultimate author and authority not the other way around. Peter was not rebuked for not being a good "bible" Christian but for wanting to impede Christs journey to the cross of salvation.
I urge you to read scripture the way it was meant to be read, through the eyes of the Church from which it was produced through the benevolence of God.
From the Council of constance:
SESSION 13 - 15 June 1415
[Condemnation of communion under both kinds, recently revived among the Bohemians by Jakoubek of Stribro]
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, Amen. Certain people, in some parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that the christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere not only under the form of bread but also under that of wine, and they stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal, or else without the need of a fast, contrary to the church’s custom which has been laudably and sensibly approved, from the church’s head downwards, but which they damnably try to repudiate as sacrilegious. Therefore this present general council of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, wishing to provide for the safety of the faithful against this error, after long deliberation by many persons learned in divine and human law, declares, decrees and defines that, although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting, except in cases of sickness or some other necessity as permitted by law or by the church. Moreover, just as this custom was sensibly introduced in order to avoid various dangers and scandals, so with similar or even greater reason was it possible to introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread. For it should be very firmly believed, and in no way doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained under both the form of bread and the form of wine. Therefore, since this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and holy fathers, and has been observed for a very long time, it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church’s permission. To say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined as heretics and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy in the kingdoms or provinces in which anything is attempted or presumed against this decree, according to the canonical and legitimate sanctions that have been wisely established in favour of the catholic faith against heretics and their supporters.
[That no priest, under pain of excommunication, may communicate the people under the forms of both bread and wine]
This holy synod also decrees and declares, regarding this matter, that instructions are to be sent to the most reverend fathers and lords in Christ, patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, and their vicars in spirituals, wherever they may be, in which they are to be commissioned and ordered on the authority of this sacred council and under pain of excommunication, to punish effectively those who err against this decree. They may receive back into the church’s fold those who have gone astray by communicating the people under the forms of both bread and wine, and have taught this, provided they repent and after a salutary penance, in accordance with the measure of their fault, has been enjoined upon them. They are to repress as heretics, however, by means of the church’s censures and even if necessary by calling in the help of the secular arm, those of them whose hearts have become hardened and who are unwilling to return to penance.
You wrote: “I urge you to read scripture the way it was meant to be read, through the eyes of the Church from which it was produced through the benevolence of God.”
The scriptures state:
Paslm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Matthew 5:18, 19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Matthew 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Jesus was able to define His life by the Scriptures, because it is the Word of God, as He is the Living Word of God. He had no desire to defy His own revelation, but came to fulfill it and reconcile humanity to Himself and the Father.
He had pretty harsh words for those who void the commands of God through their traditions, as the Roman Catholic Church has often done.
He doesn’t need the “church” to tell Him, or his followers what the word of God means, though we can all learn and be encouraged through fellowship/teaching.
Your premise that the Roman Catholic Church produced the word of God is baloney, though I am grateful for any role Catholics have had in protecting/preserving the Word (even though usually keeping it from the people). I am especially grateful for those, like Wycliffe, whom the Catholics branded a heretic, for making the Word of God available, as it was OBVIOUSLY meant to be, to the common man.