“It’s why the Bible should be our final and ultimate source for these matters.”
WRONG.
The first theologians, the early Church fathers used the oral tradition, and for years discussed what should be included in scripture and what should be omitted, they based this on tradition and custom and liturgical practice. The Bible as you should know were books that did not fall from the skies and self-arranged themselves in the order in which they are assembled.
Those who did so, acted with the Petrine authority, what more supreme authority does one have than to actually put together the authentic words of the Bible? But yet this not all. Included in these works were what were not written but were handed down as part of the deposit of faith to the first holders of the Petrine ministry. John 21: 25 refutes the nonsense that the Bible by itself without regard to other forms of scriptural interpretation is the ultimate source of all belief:
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” (Douay-Rheims Bible)
Thus interpretation must be based on the written word, on the interrelation placed on them by those who assembled these texts, and corroborated by liturgical practice and forms of worship and veneration believed by the early disciples of Christ.
This has been debated by theological scholars ever since for 2000 years by both Catholic, and by non-Catholic theologians who have converted to Catholicism. They all agree Christ founded ONE Church with ONE truth to be carried forward with the same Petrine authority given to the early Church fathers.
Those who refute the doctrine of the incarnation and the Holy Eucharist have demolished the very cornerstone beliefs of Christianity and in a word have no right to call themselves “Christians” except as well-intentioned but just misguided preachers that runs the whole gamut from Jim Jones and David Koresh to the TD Jakes, Al Sharptons, Joel Osteens and Billy Grahams. Theirs is the interpretation of simpletons rejected by a vast body of authority.
Simply throwing out swatches of scriptures is old hat that has long since been discarded and relegated to the trash bin of inauthentic interpretation shorn from context and lacking historical support.
You've just opened the door to Mormonism and pretty much anyone else. You've also opened the door to allowing Mary to be named a Redemtrix alongside of Christ. That's the next step for her. The votes aren't there for that just yet...but it's coming.
Catholicism already wrongly teaches we can't get to Christ except we go through Mary.
That right there disqualifies every other non-biblical teaching of the catholic church. In fact, it makes me double and triple check everything I read by catholics.
Jesus set the example of how we should respond to these challenges by stating..."It is written...." He appealed to the written Word on more than one occasion while trashing the traditions of the pharisees.
There is only Petrine authority in the minds of catholics. We know the ECFs did not all adhere to this interpretation. They're all over the board on this.
If we're not adhering to the Word as the final authority we open ourselves up man-made doctrine as we see in the false teachings on Mary. I posted earlier regarding the false book these teachings are based on.
Paul relied upon the Word being the final authority in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Regarding the Eucharist, I've already posted on that. It is not the actual blood or flesh we're partaking...it is the faith in Christ that saves us.
But then again, catholics believe you have to go through Mary to get to Christ so why should I believe they are correct on this??
If the Eucharist is the end all be all for salvation, then the individual who believes in Christ and dies on the battlefield without benefit of the Eucharist, or an individual in a car wreck or some other situation where the Eucharist or a priest is not available, then based on what you're saying, they are not saved and do not go to Heaven. That flies against John 3:16 and pretty much everything Paul has written in the NT.
I tell you, if I were catholic and really believed what ya'll on this board say it teaches, I wouldn't let a priest out of my sight.
To throw the name of Billy Graham in with the charlatans you mention is rather disingenuous on your part.
Your last paragraph, regarding throwing out "swatches of scriptures", is more along catholic lines of picking and choosing verses, and goodness knows what else, out of context to support the false teaching of catholicism.