“I suppose it is impossible to hear/read the arrogance of your claim. God made a donkey speak to a preacher for hire. Claiming credit for things not possible does not make ones claims credible. “
And the Shepard of Hermas is not part of the NT why? Ditto other books frequently read but deemed not scriptural in the end. SomEONE had to decide, and given PETER and his successors were authorized by Jesus himself to “bind and loose” and Jesus said he was building his church on Peter [Matthew] and that Timothy said that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth.” Then I think it would be a good thing to know who had the authority to do declare something scriptural. Certainly not your sect. I’m going on the apostolic succession Jesus Himself established and am not taking a chance on your sect. if that sounds “arrogant” take it up with Jesus. I didn’t make the rules and decisions. HE did!
This so called authorized succession was made up. I have read Peter's words and not even he named his successor.
Furthermore, given the blissful ignorance of all those holy prophets that Peter and Christ relied upon make the so called Old Testament one and the same as the Gospel. In Deuteronomy 32 there are two rocks. Even Paul instructed that what happened before to them was our script that would be again to draw down this flesh age.
Grace is unmerited favor and can only come from the Heavenly Father in the name of His only Begotten Son. Nobody else has a say in regards to each individual. There is no Mary on the Heavenly throne. And what about that key to David, that closes and/or locks doors?
I could spend days pointing out things you all allowed in the WORD that are completely ignored via so called succession. Might as well toss the original in the trash. Peter never made up a whole bunch of so called feast days and he sure never rolled easter eggs or had the authority to pass off that power to any one else.
Egregious extrapolation on steroids! So recognizing writings as being of God makes one the infallible interpreters of it, to whom all must submit?
And "bind and loose" translates into the same, and able to require submission to traditions even if they lack actually Scriptural evidence or even among the earliest (so-called) church "fathers ."
And that both sources consistently teach that that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18? And that thus the whole church looked to a perpetually assuredly infallible chair in Rome as its supreme head over all? With history solidly supporting this?
And that the Greek in “the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim. 3:15) somehow means what? That Rome is the supreme authority over Scripture?
RCs are know here for arguments by assertions, as are the refutations, but we or i have not seen you here before.