On the other hand, the authority of the Church to settle disputed questions (to bind and loose)--- NOW --- is supported by the text:
"If he refuses to listen even to the Church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Matthew 18:17)
and
(James of Jerusalem) "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." --- and in the same context --- "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...(Acts 15:28)
Jesus Christ is the pillar and foundation of Truth and not the Church. If you are speaking of the universal church it is built on Christ and that is where it it derives it’s truth. If you are talking about the Roman sect very little of the truth remains in it. That is one of the problems with the catholic church. it keeps trying to build on anything but Christ. (Peter, Mary, and according to your tagline even the church itself are described as what the catholic church is built on. There is only one cornerstone and foundation worthy of building on and that is Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
Your interpretation is not obligated by the text. If it were, I trust you would have pointed it out in bold.
It is. But as a Roman you use the "see and say method," not understanding context, nor the scope of Scripture. But without training and time in the Word, how could you??
On the other hand, the authority of the Church to settle disputed questions (to bind and loose)--- NOW --- is supported by the text:
Entirely different role. Again, you are using a see and say method, and have this bad result.
Words, apart from language, context and hermeneutics have differing meanings.
The Council of Jerusalem is particularly troublesome for Rome as they relied upon Scripture for their ruling. They did not introduce anything new.
Of course, we have about sliced and diced the injunction against blood almost every way possible, yet Rome continues to insist otherwise.
The council also doesn't support Peter as being the pope as he was not in charge of the council.
Sorry sweetie; but the CONTEXT clearly shows that disagreements between INDIVIDUALs is the point of the words of Jesus.
Golly!
You can pull PART of the info in Acts 15 to try to support your position!
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
Is that the official, Catholic authorized interpretation of that passage or your own personal interpretation of that passage?