You are once again avoiding answering the questions by simply espousing more specious propaganda. For if the "we gave you the Bible" polemic is to have any real import,then your argument must be as described, so that the instruments and stewards of Scripture are the infallible interpreters of it. If not, then we need not follow Rome then the Scribes and Pharisees.
Through divine inspiration Catholics wrote the Bible
False. Most of Scripture was established as being so before a church of Rome would presume she was essential for this.
Moreover, Rome is based upon the fallacious foundation that an infallible magisterium is essential for determination of Truth. and on that basic alone it cannot be the one true (or a true) NT church./ Which:
1. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people.
2. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made such distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7)
3. Never had apostles preaching receiving the Eucharist as the means by which one received spiritual life in themselves, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54), versus believing the gospel, and the Lord's supper as focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
4. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift.
5. Never promised a perpetual assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium, or taught this is necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the steward of Scripture assured they had assured infallibility.
6. Never manifested where Peter is confirmed to be the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself.
7. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
8. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) besides for Judas (who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) and who was elected by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
9. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
10. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling or baptism in recognition of proxy faith, and which usually ends with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
11. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”
12. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven) who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them.
13. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as leave and cleave. ) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted as a demigoddess. All of which conspicuous absence is not characteristic of Holy Spirit who reveals notable aspects of its significant subjects, from long life, to escaping death or being bodily assumed to God, to extra toes, to unique diets, to being sinless, etc.
14. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
15. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
16. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an unknown god) is the same as theirs.
then compiled the Bible, then canonized the Bible.
It did not write or compile Scripture as a project of the infallible magisterium, while the latter only could ratify what became the consensus of people discerning writings of individuals. Yet even the words of her claimed infallible magisterium are not inspired as Scripture is, which is the supreme authority, as is abundantly evidenced .
then canonized the Bible
Not indisputable until over 1400 years after the last book was written, while doubts and disagreements continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent .
Not sects who broke away from the Catholic Church
They broke away from a break away, though this deformation was progressive, as briefly shown in this post , and enabled the body of Christ to continue.
and for over 500 years have been spreading and teaching errors about the gospel of Jesus Christ, found in the Catholic document known as the Bible.
Actually, as shown above, for over 1500 years the church of Rome has been teaching nd spreading errors contrary to the document known as the Bible. And as God often raised up men from without the magisterium to reprove it and provide and preserve faith, so the church began contrary to the RC model, in dissent from those who sat in seat of Moses.
But a progressive deformation of the church too place, with a pope even by the 4th c. employing a murderous mob to secure his seat from his rival, and the era Ratzinger describes,
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.
It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. — Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).
Deal with it brother Daniel, because it’s fact and you know it’s fact and that’s why you try so hard to put down anything to do with Catholicism.
I have indeed dealt with it and have refuted your parroted propaganda before, but which delusion RCs seem compelled to post in order to comfort themselves with such, as for others such exposed sophistry has ended up being an argument against being an RC. You yourself have much facilitated this.
Going strong now for 2,000 years.
Another fallacy, not only that longevity must mean validity, but that historical descent equals authenticity, and that Rome today is essentially the same church as the NT one, while in fact it is based upon a foundationally contrary premise.
But RCs believe her, as Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
And if the world stands 2,000 more years it will still be around,
So would the devil and likely Hinduism. But she will not be reigning with Christ during His 1,000 kingdom on earth, which she even denies.
safeguarding the truth and teaching the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ.
Actually, she manifestly holds to an admixture of truth and error, and due to the latter has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes.
Whatever faith you follow will be lost in the dust bins of history and the Catholic Church will be be standing.
Rather, the glory of man which Rome examples withereth, "and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever." (1 Peter 1:24-25) And as he that exalted himself shall be abased, so will pompous presumptuous papal Rome, along with proud elsewhere, and only those who are a poor and contrite and lay hold on Christ as Lord and Savior, seeing past the trappings of institutionalized religion, will be saved. May all be of such, and thus exalted Christ, not a church.
Excellent and fact laden post...
“Most of Scripture was established as being so before a church of Rome would presume she was essential for this”
Whether you want to admit or not Christ established the Catholic Church the minute he said “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”.
The NT (that’s the gospel of Jesus Christ if you don’t know), was written AFTER the Catholic Church was established.
The rest of your post is not worth discussing. It’s the same anti-Catholic rhetoric you have posted hundreds of times. It never changes.