[metmom]

Accordingly, the Bible can be considered to be two things – it is younger than the Catholic Church and it is the product of the Catholic Church. This means that the Bible is not the sole rule of faith for Christians, but rather “the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth” as it says in I Timothy 3:15.

Again we see the inconsistency of Catholic teaching and thought in that the very Scripture Catholics deny as authoritative is being used in an authoritative way to give their church its authority.

That's pulling themselves up by their boot straps.

[NYer]

Again we see the inconsistency of Catholic teaching and thought in that the very Scripture Catholics deny as authoritative is being used in an authoritative way to give their church its authority.

On the contrary, the scripture you 'worship' supports the existence of the Catholic Church before it was written and compiled into the New Testament.

"Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers.  On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian." 
St. Athanasius ("Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuisc," c. 360 A.D.

[boatbums]

Accordingly, the Bible can be considered to be two things – it is younger than the Catholic Church and it is the product of the Catholic Church. This means that the Bible is not the sole rule of faith for Christians, but rather “the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth” as it says in I Timothy 3:15.

Again we see the inconsistency of Catholic teaching and thought in that the very Scripture Catholics deny as authoritative is being used in an authoritative way to give their church its authority. That's pulling themselves up by their boot straps.

It is disingenuous playing with words. When RCs say the "Bible" they don't mean sacred Scripture, but the compiled volume containing all the books that make up the Bible canon. The one THEY claim they created as well as wrote - since they can, at will, go back in time and label all Christians, including the Apostles (and even the Jewish Patriarchs), as "Catholics". That's why they say the Bible didn't exist until the first council occurred three to four hundred years after the last Apostle died and which identified all the books that make up the Bible canon.

Conveniently, they ignore the lists some of the early church fathers wrote (i.e., Ireneaus, Tertullian, Origen) that DO usually identify the books accepted by the early Christians and recognized as well as read and studied by them. That these books had Apostolic sanction was the major reason why they were received as God-breathed Scripture. The Christians didn't need to wait for some "official" church council to believe the doctrines espoused within these epistles. Their divine origin was intrinsically understood and was why the doctrines they communicated were obeyed and why they had a "rule of faith" long before a formal canon was recognized.

[terycarl]

Again we see the inconsistency of Catholic teaching and thought in that the very Scripture Catholics deny as authoritative is being used in an authoritative way to give their church its authority. That's pulling themselves up by their boot straps.

the Catholic church is on top and has no need to pull herself up by anything.

[ronnietherocket3]

Have you read CCC 127? While that link does not cite who said those quotes, my copy of the CCC cites them as St. Caeseria the Younger to S. Richildis and St. Radegunde (for the first) and St. Therese of Liseaux in her autobiography.