Jesus did not write anything. The authorities in the Church determined which books belonged to the canon.
The Church is not a tyranny, in spite of her errors of the past. The Church is a living body.
The Scriptures teaches plurality among it's elders,
So does the Catholic Church. Have you noticed how many Cardinals and bishops there are?
it does not give one human the sole authority.
Have you noticed that Jesus gives the keys to *one* man?
'Upon this rock.' He did not say ‘upon Peter’, it is not upon the man, but upon his faith that the church is built.
Not true. See my post #1339 .
Explain why God chose Paul, not Peter, to be the Apostle to the Gentiles.
What is there to explain?
What about all those Churches Paul formed on his journeys.
What about them?
Churches plural!
You can't be serious. Do you really think that there being different churches in different cities is somehow incompatible with there being one visible Church? When Jesus spoke to Peter in Matt 16, he didn't say, "I will build my churches." He said, "I will build my Church" (singular). See also Acts 9:31, 20:28, 1 Cor 12:28, 1 Cor 15:9, and I could go on and on. There are dozens and dozens of references to the one visible Church throughout the New Testament.
The Ephesian elders ruled in the Church in Ephesus, not as underlings of Peter in Rome, but as appointed by the Apostle Paul so to carry out those duties.
Not true. Apparently, you don't know even Scripture very well. The first council at Jerusalem was called to answer a particular question regarding Jews. The council had to be held in Jerusalem because that was were the Apostles were.
So I guess the modern Roman position is true because modern Rome says so.
Peter had authority because Christ gave him the keys. The bishop after Peter (i.e. Linus) received those keys from Peter, being ordained by him to succeed him. Otherwise, the keys would disappear from the Earth upon the death of Peter.
I guess you think Rome has the authority because Rome said so.
I was raised Protestant. In that state, I came to the conclusion that Catholicism was correct, after a long and careful study of both Scripture and Church history.
It seems you worship an institution instead a of living God.
Well, that's another straw man. I do not worship any institution. Worship is reserved only for God. But the Church, being Christ's mystical body, is on that account worthy of honor and devotion. We care for and serve the Church, because in doing so, we honor Christ.
Even if Peter is in some sense was the head of the early church, the Bible specifies no line of succession.
Scripture does not even give us the canon of Scripture! Scripture does not give us a lot of things. You appear to be stuck in 'sola scriptura' so badly, that you can't even think outside of the 'sola scriptura' box.
Scripture does not specify that one physical church is the only true church
See all the Scriptures I mentioned above. Or just do a concordance seach on "church", and see how many times in the NT the term is used not to refer to a particular church, but to the whole Church. The whole Church is not some invisible entity; it is united, as Paul says in Eph 4:16 that the Church is joined and held together by supporting ligaments, which is the hierarchical structure of the Church. The council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 shows that the Church is unified by its organic connection to the Apostles (who were themselves unified by their organic connection to Christ), and thus to their successors.
Scripture doesn't say that Peter, or any one man can speak infallibly, since the Bible only discusses Elders, Overseers and Deacons.
All these "Scripture does not say" are arguments from silence, and indications of 'sola scriptura' thinking. The problem with your position is that unless the Church is "preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals", you cannot be justified in your belief that Scripture is infallible. For if the Church is fallible in such things, then perhaps certain books don't belong in the Bible, or other books do belong in the Bible. When you attack the infallibility of the Church, you attack the infallibility of the Scripture (the very limb upon which you are sitting), for the Scripture can be no more infallible than those who determined its content.
-A8
Quite true, but also quite different from....
He said, "YOU will build my Church"
My question is: when do you cede that the out of context misinterpretations of written tradition by these well-meaning but myopic people cross the line of Matthew 7:6, "nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos?"
Keep up the great work!
Earlier in our discussions you cited the work by Robert A. Sungenis entitled "Not By Scripture Alone". In an essay entitled "When A Pope Errs" Mr. Sungenis says the following:
"The world is ripe to have the gospel of judgment and damnation preached to it from the housetops (for its own good and before it is too late), but no one at the Vatican seems to be doing so, and the pope is not leading them in that direction. Ever since the last council, the Vatican has been seeking to be extra “nice” to everyone, engaging in all kinds of “ecumenical activities” that allow for a whole host of beliefs and practices that wouldn’t even have seen the light of day in previous pontificates. In the process, the Vatican seems to have lost sight of the gospel that Noah preached, and that Jesus and Paul certainly preached, that is, that the world is under judgment and condemnation until, if and when, they repent of their sins and are baptized into Christ."
I would ask you and Mr. Sungenis the following question:
When you look at America today, who would you say is doing more of what Mr. Sungenis would have done? The Roman Catholic Church or the Evangelical churches?