“By your own words you are saying that you use circular reasoning, so why should we believe anything the Church has to say about anything?”
Ok.
So you believe the Church is wrong.
If, in fact, the Church came before and wrote Sacred Scripture, AND the Church cannot be trusted in anything that they wrote
THEN - from both premises, Sacred Scripture cannot be trusted. This is my point. You cannot divorce Sacred Scripture from Tradition.
“As soon as you claimed the RCC is more authoritative than God”
Do you believe that the Apostles were members of the Roman Catholic church?
Why would I? The RCC didn't exist then.
That's a mighty big IF--and one I do not accept.
No, I certainly don't. There eventually were many Christian churches (assemblies) in Rome (it's BIG city), but even up to the Council of Nicea the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today was NOT in existance. Therefore, the Apostles - including Peter - were not members of the Roman Catholic Church - that's just revisionist, wishful thinking.
The Catholic Church
Catholic actually means "universal." It was a common adjective applied to the Church/churches in the 4th century. It is a mistake to assume the word "catholic" was a reference to the Roman Catholic hierarchy, which did not exist at the time of the Council of Nicea.
The Council of Nicea made a number of decisions that give us a clear picture of the authority of Rome at the time. Those decisions are called "canons." Canon VI reads:
The extent of the jurisdiction of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are not exactly given, except for the bishop of Alexandria, but they were clearly not universal.
There is extensive evidence that there was no "pope" in the Ante-Nicene Church. Thus, any references at or before the Council of Nicea to the "catholic" Church or "catholic" churches are simply references to the Church universal. http://www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea.html#sthash.72k1NhbB.Wsn3kgES.dpbs