Of course the text existed before it was included in the Canon by the Church... who has ever claimed otherwise? As for names... the Roman Catholic Church came to known as such to distinguish it from the Eastern Church after the Great Schism. Before that, there was simply the Church. Read into that whatever you will.
... lest Rome come along and boast of its incredibly fat head and bathrobe garbed lechers. Rome is not only demonic, but unnecessary, useless, impotent, feckless, worthless.
{shaking the dust from my sandals...}
“”As for names... the Roman Catholic Church came to known as such to distinguish it from the Eastern Church after the Great Schism. Before that, there was simply the Church.””
Dear friend, it’s still called simply the Church and although we do not have full unity with the EO’s they are united with us in valid Sacraments of the Church.
Here is a good article.
How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
Excerpt...
The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.
Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as “I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church.” Simply that — Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!
Cardinals, for example, are called cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, but that designation means that when they are named to be cardinals they have thereby become honorary clergy of the Holy Father’s home diocese, the Diocese of Rome. Each cardinal is given a titular church in Rome, and when the cardinals participate in the election of a new pope. they are participating in a process that in ancient times was carried out by the clergy of the Diocese of Rome.
Although the Diocese of Rome is central to the Catholic Church, this does not mean that the Roman rite, or, as is sometimes said, the Latin rite, is co-terminus with the Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites which are all very much part of the Catholic Church today, as in the past.
In our day, much greater emphasis has been given to these “non-Roman” rites of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council devoted a special document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches), to the Eastern rites which belong to the Catholic Church, and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church similarly gives considerable attention to the distinctive traditions and spirituality of these Eastern rites.
So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it.
Obfuscation, of course. Your claim was that we would never have read it had it not been for Rome. Piffle. Double piffle. The churches (note little c) were reading it in the letters circulated long before such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church (trademark) existed (or for that matter before the "Church" with a capital C existed). Read the text, my FRiend (now that it is legal) and notice all the references to "churches". Gatherings of the real believers occurred everywhere, all over the world, and do to this day. There was no central authority.
The eklesia simply means "a popular assembly" or "summoned out ones". Of course, recognizing this elementary koine' greek etymology would require a break from Rome's demand to consider "Church" like a brand of chewing gum. Oh, well.
The called out, the elect had been reading the text in question from Hebrew Canon for the thousand (David) and seven hundred (Isaiah) years before Christ. Paul was simply (simply?) granted the understanding that this is what the Word of God was getting at all along. Works by lost, evil men were inadequate, ineffective. Men are at war with God and do, cannot, seek Him...alone.
It is true that God waited for Paul to really give perspicuity to the rest of the Scripture. It was Paul who explained faith is granted as a gift by the gracious working of the Holy Spirit as the only sufficient cure. When the Blood was shed, the shadows of sacrifices, priests & cermonies were done away with. No transaction, just a gift to the chosen. No organization, no sacerdotalism, no absolution by man, no human mediators. Amazing.
And, what I read into the Schism and name branding is that the believers in Christ are grateful much of the damage is contained within that organization. Witness the celebration of Luther's excommunication. What a blessing! Give Rome our thanks. However, there are still remnants of errant theology around, some of it perpetrated by those outside of Rome. The darkness has worked very hard to poison the orginal message of the Gospel...free grace through faith granted to the elect.
"{shaking the dust from my sandals...}"
Grateful for the exit. It allows me to cooperate with Paul's words of caution to Timothy: But, refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing they produce qarrels. And the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in oppostion, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.
We pray He will grant such release to many currently inside the prison of Rome. Come out into His light...if you are granted eyes to see and ears to hear.