" Paul told us to hold fast to the traditions that have been taught (past tense)... not be followers of 'tradition' that would occur centuries into the future..."
The Catholic Church's doctrines are not traditions invented or manufactured centuries into the future.
We do, as Paul commanded, "stand fast, and hold the traditions" ---capital-T "Traditions" ---which we have received from Apostolic teachings. E.g., the Nicene Creed, a capital-T Tradition which summarizes, interprets and applies the teachings we have from the Apostles.
The Scriptures are a major part of this: written Tradition. Paul said to observe what they wrote, what they preached, and their example.
Now, think of this. Christ taught His disciples for 40 days between His Resurrection and His Ascension into heaven. But we don't have 40 more books, 40 chapters, or even 40 sentences about this teaching. St. John the Evangelist says if it all were written down, the earth itself would not be big enough to hold all the books.
But (see John, Chapters 14-16 especially) Christ did say that that "the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things ... will remind you of everything I have said to you ...will testify about me...He will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."
This was Christ's promise to us. If we look to what the earliest Christians preached and practiced, we will see truths that came, not from them,but from the Holy Spirit, Who has always been with Christ's Church.
Scripture calls the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the Truth." The Church's doctrines do not negate the truths of Scripture, but rather defend, interpret, and apply them.
"Peter taught us that we don't bow down to an apostle or any religious figure..."
Right: we are to adore nobody other than God. This doesn't exclude showing honor to others. Scripture itself shows people bowing down to, even prostrating before, angels, and honored visitors, Moses, Saul, David, their own parents --- and not sinfully, but with the approval of God Check out 200+ Biblical examples here (Link)
Although we are to "adore" only God, they understood that we may "honor" other human beings, especially those who represent God's authority over us.
Jesus' warnings about pride did not mean that nobody should wear a robe, or that nobody should sit in the front, but that people should not be motivated by personal prestige. They should not love honors, even if they rightfully receive them. Jesus said:
Luke 11:43
“Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces."
I've never seen any church of any sort that didn't have the preacher or pastor in the front of the room, or that didn't greet him respectfully. But they are not to love prestige.
"Paul taught us that the churches are the people who are the members of the 'Body', not the leadership..."
[I presume you mean not "just" the leadership!]Yes, that's right: the Church is the people of God. That's what Catholics are taught.
"Paul taught us that a Bishop has to have a wife and a good family..."
'Has to"? Interesting. Did Paul have a wife? (For that matter, did Jesus?) No. So presumably a leader of the Church, if he were married should be the husband of only one wife, and children who were well-raised. It doesn't mean they HAD TO have a wife. Paul himself repeatedly recommended remaining unmarried (Link).
"Paul taught us that homosexuals are not to be honored in the churches...And certainly would not be acceptable as Bishops or Elders or Pastors..."
The Catholic Church teaches this too.
"So this raises the question...Have all of the Catholic Parishes rejected and distanced themselves from every homosexual religious leader since the time of the apostles to the present??? "
No. In these cases, people had the true Catholic doctrine, and -- because of their slackness or rebellion --- failed to follow it. This is sin: they dissent or depart from what Christ teaches us through the Catholic Church!
Christ told us that there will be tares growing amidst the wheat until the end of time, when the Angels will come and separate the to, and cast the tares into the fire to be burned.
No one should use this as a reason to attack the Church itself. It would be like abandoning the Lord and the Apostles, because most of the Apostles betrayed, denied, or abandoned Him. Yes, they sinned. And yes, they were the Lord's select men. And they--- other than Judas --- later repented and led His flock.
That's the drama of the Church through the centuries, over and over again: betrayal, denial, sin; repentance, restoration, redemption.
“The Catholic Church’s doctrines are not traditions invented or manufactured centuries into the future. “
Well, not all. Just many. Just find that stuff during the Church’s first 100 years of life. If you find it in that timeframe, I will concede it is a tradition - not equal to inspired Scripture, but able to inform practice. That is plenty of time to see if there were any traditions being passed along.
... when they don’t show up for 300 years or more, it is silliness to claim they are not made up out of whole cloth and pagan roots.
“We do, as Paul commanded, “stand fast, and hold the traditions” -—capital-T “Traditions” -—which we have received from Apostolic teachings. E.g., the Nicene Creed, a capital-T Tradition which summarizes, interprets and applies the teachings we have from the Apostles.”
As has been shown in previous posts, quoting Augustine, Theodoret, and even a “Pope” of the Catholic Church (and I can bring to bare many others), it doesn’t appear that there is a 2,000 year long history of Roman tradition, capitalized or not. What we do have, however, is the unchanging scripture, and lots of people with very different opinions from the Romanists of today, even on the primacy of Rome from a Bishop of Rome!
Thus, the entire argument that follows from you is simply irrelevant. Its foundation does not exist. The Roman church is not the successor of anyone but their own innovations, which are everyday still innovating new things.
I’ll stick with scripture. It is, after all, useful for reproof, doctrine so that the man of God may be perfect. Your contradictory (T)raditions are not mentioned.
They include traditions which were made into doctrines, as were those which the Lord rebuked by Scripture, and which all must be subject to, as it is abundantly evidence to be the standard for obedience and testing/establishing truth claims.
And what you cannot prove was that the traditions referred to by Paul had not been written elsewhere or were not subsequently written as Scripture, but were strictly oral.
St. John the Evangelist says if it all were written down
The Word of God does include more than what is written, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) but the problem is we can only know if something is the word of God by subjecting it to the only class of revelation that is the assured word of God, the Scriptures, as they alone are affirmed to be wholly inspired. And you will hard pressed to find many texts which refer to the word of God/the Lord that was not written, or would be.
Scripture calls the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the Truth..."
The church of the living, not institutionalized. God that is, and despite RC attempts, the text does not state anything more than that the church supports the truth, not that a church based in Rome is the supreme authority above Scripture.
Jesus' warnings about pride did not mean that nobody should wear a robe...Scripture itself shows people bowing down to, even prostrating before...
But consistent with the "but I say unto you" teaching of the Lord, He warns against ostentatious religious clothing (which cardinals and popes exhibit), and an exalted-class attitude among brethren which prostrating obeisance shows, (Mt. 23:5-12) and accordingly the Holy Spirit explicitly reveals Peter as disallowing even a lost Gentile from bowing down to him. (Acts 10:25-26) And which you nowhere see btwn NT believers, while the language of Gal. 2., where it would be fitting, hardly supports the Roman adulation of its popes. If Peter refused such so much more lesser "popes."
Nor will you find even one example out of the multitudinous prayers in the Scriptures of any believer ever praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord (only pagans did so), or any insufficiency in Christ that warrants doing do. (Heb. 4:15-16; 10:19)
the Church is the people of God. That's what Catholics are taught.
That is misleading, as it teaches that "Church" refers to Catholicism, with Rome being the one true church to whom all must submit, and that evangelicals are not worthy to be properly called churches.
It doesn't mean they HAD TO have a wife. Paul himself repeatedly recommended remaining unmarried That is misleading, as he plainly did not teach pastors (which are never distinctively titled "priests") were to be celibate (save for convert priests). It is this negative you must prove, which is contrary to what Scripture teaches: ."blameless, the husband of one wife..For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1Tim. 3:2,5)
Paul likely was married, being a Pharisee, and a pastor could be celibate, and which sacrificial life has its virtues and advantages, but Scripturally (which Rome is not really subject to) you simply cannot require clerical celibacy (even if it is "only" church law), and which wrongly presumes all have that gift.