“Please provide clear Biblical support of this alleged special channel to the pope.”
Sure. As soon as you provide Biblical support for the false doctrine of sola scriptura.
“Please provide clear Biblical support of this alleged special channel to the pope.”
Sure. As soon as you provide Biblical support for the false doctrine of sola scriptura.
“No allegory. No appeal to the ECFs. No it looks like, feels like.”
Sure. As soon as you provide Biblical support for the false doctrine of sola scriptura. No verses that merely show the importance or inspiration of scripture, or the value and greatness of scripture. No, just verses that show sola scriptura.
“Something this important should be clear in Scripture.”
Something as important as sola scriptura - which Protestant anti-Catholics insist on as a standard in post after post to Catholics - should be clearly presented in scripture. Where is it?
As I thought. Caths can’t defend their position without having to deflect. The clear teaching of Jesus appealing to scripture establishes the precedent for relying upon the Word.
It's one of the oldest principles in the book.
That said -- papacy for the bishop of Rome, as that has come to be known, as it developed into being (this development confessed to by many Roman Catholic historians, and justified by liars such as Cardinal Newman) was a thing entirely unheard of in the earliest formations of the Church, or else guys like Newman would not have had to accept then expand upon the concepts offered up as excuses for the lack of factual/historical foundation for "popery".
Sorry, but you lose, again.
You will continue to lose on this score.