The Church founded by Christ preceded the New Testament, by a long ways. The New Testament wasn't decided until the late 4th century, by the Church, at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, where they reviewed over 300+ documents, letters, etc. They prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance and settled on only the 27 that we today call the New Testament.
Jesus didn't create a Bible-reading Church. That would have been very impractical. The vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate until the last 100 years or so of Christianity. A "bible-reading" approach would have excluded the vast majority of humanity. Jesus created a teaching and preaching Church. He trained the Apostles for three years, and they trained their successors, the bishops, who did likewise.
Your view of the Bible is predecated on personal interpretation of Scripture, which St. Peter warns against in Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21), and for good reason. How can you get to the fullness of Christ's truth if every man, woman, and child is allowed to personally interpret the Scriptures, coming up with different and contradictory interpretations? Why are there so many thousands of man-made Protestant denominations. Protestantism and this approach didn't begin until the 16th century. You would have to show that Jesus came back (or an angel, as the Mormons proclaim) and "straightened things out" and changed His methodology to personal interpretation of some translation of the Bible.
From my RCC family members I know not even all of them had a copy of their Holy Bible... and the one who recently died at 96, still did not.
They and she relied on what the priests preached on and their interpretations. (You know... many of those upstanding men who gave extra benefits to their alter boys)
And you are going to say that it was not theirs but what ultimately came down from Rome....
For the buck in the RCC stops at the POPE....
And it is your belief that the Catholic church is unified where the Protestants are not....
THEN WHY, if your church was the one that was originally started did the Orthodox split in the Great Schism of 1054.
Have you done a deep dive into this?
Have you discovered why they believe your side is in error in a great many things?
Why for the Schism???
Causes: Ecclesiastical, theological, political, cultural, jurisdictional, and language differences. Result: Permanent separation between the Roman Catholic
Church and Eastern
Orthodox, Greek
Orthodox, and Russian
Orthodox Churches. Recent relations between East and West have improved, but to date, the churches remain divided.
One of the many religious disagreements between the western (Roman) and eastern (Byzantine) branches of the
church had to do with whether or not it was acceptable to use unleavened bread for the sacrament of communion.
Seriously?.... yeah, this is certainly a true divider.....
You mention about thousands of man-made Protestant churches.....
How about all the Orthodox that came about when they split from you....
It should also be noted that the Eastern Orthodox Church
constitutes a separate tradition from the churches of the so-called Oriental Orthodox Communion, now including the
Armenian Apostolic Church, the
Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, the Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church, the
Coptic Orthodox Church, the
Syriac Orthodox Partriarchate of Antioch and All the East, and the Malankara Orthodox Church of India.
Especially
From the time of the
Council of Chalcedon in 451 to the late 20th century, the Oriental Orthodox churches were out of communion with the
Roman Catholic Church and later the Eastern Orthodox Church because of a perceived difference in doctrine regarding the divine and human natures of Jesus.
BUT HERE IS THE BIGGIE:
en.wikipedia.org
The Eastern Orthodox Church is opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy.
The test of authentic catholicity is adherence to the authority of the Church's Holy Tradition, and then to the witness of Sacred "Scripture", which is itself a product of the Church's aforementioned Holy Tradition. It is not defined by adherence to any particular see. It is the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic).
HERE IS A BIT OF TRIVIA FOR ALL ( from the above article)
Referring to Ignatius of Antioch,
[1] Carlton says
Contrary to popular opinion, the word catholic does not mean "universal"; it means "whole, complete, lacking nothing."
It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that Roman Catholic arguments in support of the teaching have relied on proofs from Fathers that have either been misinterpreted or so taken out of context as to misrepresent their true intent. It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that a closer examination of those supposed supports would have the effect of either not supporting the argument or have the opposite effect of supporting the counter-argument.
OKAY... I will stop with the references.
I only posted these to show that while the RCC church claims to be the original church... for reasons , some of listed here, the Orthodox Spilt... and they also had branches....
This is very like the Protestants.... People are not going to agree. I dont think we are supposed to.
NOW: this is a very interesting read I just came upon.
Almost 1,000 years have passed since Western and Eastern Christianity divided. What were the reasons for this split?
www.rbth.com
Read point #3.... just for information.....NOT for discussion
