Actually a supremely authoritative body of wholly inspired writings was discerned and established as being so came before there ever was a church of Rome, and thus Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church. Which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, with even the veracity of apostolic preaching being subject to examination by Scripture.
And as abundantly evidenced , as written and established, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured Word of God.
Thus, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" [not oral tradition].(Luke 24:27,43-45; cf. Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.) "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)
For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8) Cf. Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
As for oral tradition, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
All of which invalidates the argument that "you could not know what Scripture consists of and means without the Catholic church, and since we have you the Bible then it means you recognize her authority and need to submit to all else she formally defines.
He made Peter the Rock upon which it was built.
Wrong as refuted by the very post you are responding to, but like so many of your brethren here you just ignore such and parrot perverse polemics.
He didn’t say upon your faith is a rock.
So you disagree with your church as well which allows for this along with your untenable take. For your catechism affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.
Read Isaiah 22 about Eliakem.
Its Elikam and just where does Scripture or your church infallibly cite this as referring to Peter? And if not, then since your real basis for assurance of Truth rests upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of Rome, then this cannot provide it. Regardless, if you want to argue like a evangelical then neither does the Holy Spirit ever invoke Is. 22 as pertaining to Peter, and not only was this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy apparently fulfilled in the OT [as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 36:22, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later] - but the text actually states:
"In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it." (Isa 22:25)
Whether this refers to Shebna or Eliakim is irrelevant, for in any case it means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency.
Yet if we are to insist on a future fulfillment, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).
For it is Christ who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6) And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9)
Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, nor does it necessarily denote successors (Christ has none Himself, but took over the function of Lordship from the Father: Acts 2
.
Thus if this prophecy corresponds to anyone future then it is Christ, who shall one day deliver the kingdom to the Father as functional head, after he, not Peter, has put all His enemies under His feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25-28)
And in any case, the Peter of Scripture is not that of Rome.
Also in the NT there is only one church they and it continues as an unbroken chain from the 12 Disciples through the Bishops of the church. It is only the Catholic Church that continues from Jesus Christ to today
Now you are once again just parroting a polemic which you can only wish Scripture and history attests to, but which it they not.
as you see from the NT the church Jesus established is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth not the NT.
Which recourse is desperation. Somehow this text is supposed to support the RCC as being the rock-solid foundation for Truth based upon her novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, yet in the Greek none of the few actual words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach or support that the church is the supreme infallible source of Truth over that of Scripture. The word for ground (ground) only occurs here and the word for pillar (stulos) only occurs 3 other times Rev. 3:12;10:1 Gal. 2:9) and both words denote support (apostles were called “pillars”) and which the church does in supporting the Truth - which Christ is - and is grounded in it. For rather than being the source, then as said, Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and was built upon its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church (such as "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27).
Read the early church fathers and you will see the church in the NT is the Catholic Church.
Which is absurd as a basis for what the NT church believed. How can the uninspired and non-uniform writings of men be that standard? Rather, the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the NT church believed is Scripture, esp. Acts thru Revelation which best shows how they understood the OT and the gospels. As for the uninspired and non-uniform writings the early church Fathers, these manifest a progressive accretion of errors adopted from tradition which by its very nature is neither infallible and supreme susceptible corruption. Thus God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. And see 14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia