“Same could be said about catholicism with its false teachings on Mary, indulgences, etc.”
It’s only false “teachings” if you are a Protestant and think you can skip over 1500 years of Catholicism with its teachings and traditions, and then pick up on Christianity at the point of the Reformation and then claim it, and the Catholic bible as your own.
Then you cherry pick the parts of the bible you like, write a new version minus certain chapters, and claim sola scriptura after copping off with another religion’s (Catholic) bible and claiming you have the one true way. What conceit.
Then the new Protestant religions break up into hundreds of other Protestant religions until most are so watered down as to become mere shadows of the one true Christian religion (Catholicism) that they all cloned off of. And of course one man’s sola scriptura (interpretation of God’s word in the bible) is different from the next sect’s interpretation of the bible, until you have thousands of interpretations of a bible that wasn’t even initially (for 1500 years) yours.
Wow, so much revisionist history there while totally being unable to defend the false teachings.
Even if I conceded these points, the separatists and protestants came about because the RC refused to be reformed from it's many errors. Both the 12 conclusions of the Lollards and Luther's 95 theses attempted to do so. However, the RC was dogmatic in it's errors, racking and burning dissenters by the thousands.
See Matthew 15:6 "...Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition."
If it were not for the separatists and protestants, you'd still be hearing mass in Latin and looking at Latin bibles, and having no idea whether what you heard was remotely Biblical! Ever been even a little curious why the RC fought so hard to keep the Bible out of the common tongue (especially English)?
The Reformation did not skip over all that Catholicism held, and but in accordance with "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good, (1 Thessalonians 5:21) it rejected many, if not all, false teachings, while historically they and its descendants likewise hold Scripture to be the supreme authority as literally being the assured wholly inspired and accurate word of God have been ardent defenders of Truth we both concur with. And even today evangelicals are overall much more unified in the most basic beliefs than the fruit of Rome.
Meanwhile, there was no 1500 years of Catholicism by the time of the Reformation, but there was about 1400 years of progressive deformation of the prima NT church, which yet needs full recovery .
But with the recalcitrant church of Rome it reached a point where the imperfect Reformation became a necessity as Rome has become and is as the gates of Hell for multitudes (i was one), which church as the body of Christ overcomes and continues, by God's grace and to His glory. Amen.
and then pick up on Christianity at the point of the Reformation and then claim it, and the Catholic bible as your own.
It was not Catholics that penned Scripture, nor is a perpetual infallible magisterium promised or necessary for its discernment and transmission.
But is your argument that if one affirms some of what the (claimed) stewards of Scripture hold then it means such should concur with all that the latter holds?
Then you cherry pick the parts of the bible you like, write a new version minus certain chapters, and claim sola scriptura after copping off with another religion’s (Catholic) bible and claiming you have the one true way. What conceit.
So your argument is that the Protestant OT was a new version, that had no antiquity, but that Reformers dissented from an infallible canon, and made that binding?
Or that Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares? And which is not conceit?
Then the new Protestant religions break up into hundreds of other Protestant religions until most are so watered down as to become mere shadows of the one true Christian religion (Catholicism) that they all cloned off of.
So those watered down Protestants religions are those who do not hold to the primary distinctive of the Reformation, that of Scripture literally being the assured wholly inspired and accurate word of God and thus the supreme authority, or that those who hold to the latter are watered down, while those Prot churches which typically are closer to Rome are the best?
And that Catholicism itself does not exist in schism and sects, with only a limited paper unity, while in reality her actions much teach otherwise, and is reflected in what her multitudes manifestly believe. And that what RCs can and do disagree on is extensive? How much of RC teaching is even infallibly defined?
And of course one man’s sola scriptura (interpretation of God’s word in the bible) is different from the next sect’s interpretation of the bible, until you have thousands of interpretations of a bible that wasn’t even initially (for 1500 years) yours.
You mean that those who hold most strongly to that primary distinctive of the Reformation are less unified in basic Truths than the fruit of Rome, and water them down? And again, that we are to always follow the historical stewards of Scripture?
And that under the alternative, that of sola ecclesia (the church being supreme), Rome's teachings are so clear, sure and extensive that it precludes variant interpretations?
And that she has authoritatively defined Scripture (where?) to such a great extent that RCs do not have a great deal of liberty to adopt varied interpretations to defend Rome?
And that we should look to Catholic scholarship for Bible commentary, such as in the official RC NAB Bible on the Vatican web site?
And most important, that unity under the premise of the instruments and stewards of Scripture being the infallible interpreters of it is what is Biblical, versus even common people discerning both men and writings are of God, sometimes in conflict with the magisterium?
Your assertions are based upon presuppositions, for which you have much to answer for. Waiting.
We like your NEW pope...