Then rest easy.
"No, I don't mean something different."
Then I am confused. From your original post to me, I assumed you believe the statement "he who is not with the Pope is not with God, and who desires to be with God must be with the Pope." is doctrinally sound. Do you believe that statement is not doctrinally sound?
"If you prefer to ignore Apostolic Tradition"
I don't. But I question apostolic succession. And the verses you provided are a good reason why. When Paul the Apostle offers instruction by oral statement or letter, he is acting as a chosen Apostle of Jesus Christ. He was designated by God for that role. And his references to tradition are in the past tense. He says, "...hold to the traditions which you were taught by us". Never does he or any other apostle say something along the lines of "and hold to the traditions that will be taught to you by those who follow us." This is simply a fundamental difference between Protestant and Catholic theology. I believe God's inspired Word (including the traditions offered by His apostles) is sufficient. Catholics believe in the concept of the living magisterium. I think the problem most Protestants have with living magisterium is the fact that it seems to trickle out from the Catholic church in response to current events. And it seems to change over time. I'm a little uneasy with "clarifications" offered by the Catholic church to explain evolving dogma. And I believe I have company in that regard within the Catholic church. Traditionalists are obviously very uneasy with Vatican II. Rumors of the Pope changing the criteria for determining Sainthood are obviously very controversial in the Catholic church. The Bible, on the other hand, has proved both consistent and unchanged. Ancient manuscripts are the same as modern translations. And not subject to shifting political tides and world events. In short, the Bible offers consistency. Apostolic Tradition seems subject to our evolving culture.
One final note...your insistence that I study Apostolic Tradition implies that once I do, I will agree with you. I have told you that I already have. I am being honest. But after much study, prayer and reflection, I don't agree with Catholic doctrine on the subject. Wiser men than me have done the same thing and come up with similar conclusions.
I beg the differ sir. I have seen inconsistencies between Catholic and Protestant Bibles, both in interpretation and in the actual number of books in the Bible. One can translate all they want from the original texts, but if one interprets it incorrectly, how can one be correct?
As I stated before the apparent contradiction in the statement is of your own construct. As per Apostolic succession, the Pope is the head of the Church Christ founded. Salvation is through Christ -not conceptually BUT in reality by obediently following ALL His teachings which are both divinely inspired written and contained in Apostolic Tradition handed down Apostle to Apostle within the deposit of Faith -the Church He founded.
I do not say it is impossible to gain eternal life through Christ if outside of His Church and not aware of the full Truth maintained by and within His Church and His Apostles; however, to be in His Church is to be with His Apostle is to be with Him figuratively speaking -as such, more assured of understanding and gaining understanding of His teachings -subsequently, better predisposed and prepared to be obedient and possibly gain eternal life through Christ...
If you can understand Christian's relationships to other Apostles as compared to Christ you will understand why it is absurd to think Catholic's consider salvation through our Pope -this continued mischaracterization is errant thinking at best and Catholic bashing ar worst.
Wiser men than me have done the same thing and come up with similar conclusions.
From my perspective -it is not wiser men you speak of -it is lost men or dissenting men...