Where is this assumption stated in the Bible? Where in Scripture does it state that the oral Tradition of the apostles and bishops of Christ's Church would somehow cease with the completion of the New Testament---which wasn't even canonized until the 4th century A.D.?
Why would the Church after two millennia of growth and development much resemble the infant Church of the New Testament? After all, Jesus himself taught that it wouldn't (Mt. 13:31-32).
This text has to do with the purpose and function of the charismatic gifts of the Spirit, not with the communication of Divine Revelation (God's word). Thus, it simply does not support your assumption that Apostolic Tradition somehow ceased with the 4th-century canonization of the New Testament.
Right here.
Again, these are merely assumptions that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.
Given that both are the word of God (Divine Revelation), neither can take precedence over the other. Rather, each must account for the testimony of the other, as has been the case in Christ's one historic Catholic Church for the past two millennia.
Thank you for your honest answer. I am not infallible either. Therefore, we must acknowledge that our personal interpretations of the Bible are nothing more than the subjective opinions of men, and can never rise above that non-binding level of mere human opinion.
The Magisterium (apostles/bishops) of Christ's one historic Church teach infallibly as a body when they do so regarding doctrine and morals. The interpretations of lay believers like you and me, by contrast, can never rise above the level of mere human opinion---the "traditions of men." Only to the extent that our interpretations comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church can they be considered in any way binding upon believers.
On the contrary.
Simply can't happen. Also, this.
No more so than your personal interpretations/applications of the Bible. Your transparent excuse for carefully avoiding relevant information, however, is noted.
I've already provided that information here. I've also observed that your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect can be traced in history only back as far as the 19th century. The one historic Catholic Church, however, is traceable directly back to Christ, the apostles, and the early Christian Church. This is a straightforward historical fact.
Big deal. So do the Mormons. In any case, your point is rendered meaningless by the glaring fact that your preferred non-Catholic sect did not even exist until it was invented by mere men in the 19th century (!).
Jesus himself appointed a man---Peter---to guide and teach His one historic Church in His own name and by His very authority (Mt. 16:18-19; 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 3:15). Your chosen man-made sect, therefore, is decidedly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which He declared that the powers of death would never prevail. Rather, it is a mere tradition of men.
Christ has always chosen to work his purposes through human beings, his one historic Church in particular. See just above.
We "pray" to past saints in a very different sense in which we "pray" to God." Two quite different meanings of the term. Non-Catholics often miss this fact. See this.
...just as your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect has taught you do do. And yet, given that your chosen sect was invented by mere men only in the 19th century (!), it is decidedly not Christ's one historic Church, and therefore its opinions carry no binding authority whatsoever. They are the mere opinions (traditions) of men.
Your assumption here is categorically refuted by the some 50,000+ competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic denominations and sects in existence today, with more being concocted every week. Your claim simply does not work in practice, as the 500-year history of Protestant Sectarianism plainly demonstrates.
They believe that they read and interpret the Bible just as honestly and sincerely as you do, friend, and you have no basis whatsoever for claiming otherwise. And yet we have 50,000+ non-Catholic sects all disagreeing with one another over even central and defining doctrines of the faith, and all declaring "sola scriptura!" over their own idiosyncratic and utterly non-authoritative doctrinal opinions (you admitted that your interpretations are not infallible). What a hopelessly subjective interpretive chaos.
I agree with you on this point of doctrine. Yet, I only know that this interpretation is correct because it comports with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church. Otherwise, it would merely be my own human opinion, of no more authority that any other tradition of men.
Now go ahead and post your proof for this unsubstantiated assertion.
Although not directed at me, the fact that a church was organized later, does not make it false. Teachings make a church false. The fact that all the world would be taught incorrectly and fooled by the false prophet doesn't seem to hit home with you that the original church will go apostate. It is a matter of scripture that the day would turn to night after Christ left. Therefore, the interpretation of an earthly church meeting the prophecy of the gates of hell not prevailing against the keys of revelation given to Peter simply cannot be.
Christ did not found a church in Rome. Peter did along with MANY other cities in which the apostles founded churches for Christ. Nothing of biblical record gave Rome more authority than any other city or bishop in the church. By the time of Constantine, the bishop of Rome was merely one of some 1300 bishoprics throughout the empire - some of which were also founded through Peter.