It's normal practice if you are quoting different people within a post or series of posts to label the quotes with the person's name - at least the first post in a sequence. You're responding to people not just words. I hope you won't go down the sad route of trying to find an example where I haven't done this - this is an absolute not relative point. Do you have the courage to respond positively to what I've just said I wonder? Note I have addressed this post to you only - so all the quotes are yours unless otherwise stated.Church Fathers
This continual reference to the church fathers or leaders of the church in the first few centuries doesn't establish anything except that they wanted to protect their position and livelihood. They don't have apostolic authority or at least you haven't established that they do.
What a stark comparison there is between the pomp and wealth of the RCC and the NT church. Rather than losing their lives for Christ's sake the RCC hierarchy love their lives at the expense of those who donate. The message that you cannot serve God and money has been turned on its head: serving God means serving money for the RCC. Of course, there are other denominations that are guilty of this but it's hard to see how Swiss guards further the gospel.
Apostolic Tradition handed down to us
You still haven't established that this happened or how it happened. All you have are biased assertions long after Peter's death.
Church is called Catholic because it honestly holds the whole truth,
Any church=denomination can call itself "catholic" or "universal" or "orthodox" - this doesn't make it so.
The Catholic Church pre dates the Bible ... it created the Bible.
The first part is being economical with the truth. The second part is a falsehood. Bible=set of books and the books of the Bible were written before there was a recognisable Roman Church with wider authority than Rome. The "creating" was done by God who inspired the biblical authors. You have given a clear example of how the RCC wants to replace God with itself - in fact it seems to me from what you write that the RCC secretly wants to do away with God. You may not be typical of all catholics in this I hope.Eliakim
I wondered when you would get round to this. Of course, there's no mention of him in the NT so what you say is wishful thinking and make believe - "creating" the Bible in your own image if you like when it doesn't say what you want. His predecessor, Shebna, wasn't a good example was he? He was thrown out to die by God for building an expensive pretentious tomb monument for himself - ah there is a parallel! Fortunate for the pope that this is the age of grace even if he doesn't fully believe in grace. There's nothing to indicate any sequence of stewards after Eliakim so this is just RCC make-believe.
However, the phrase "key of David" is significant. It is taken up in the NT not in Mt 16 but explicitly in Rev 3:7To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open
As you can see this passage refers specifically to the passage in Isaiah 22. The one who is "holy and true" is not Peter but the Lord Jesus Christ
. You have given another example where the RCC seeks to replace God with itself. Now do you understand why the Reformation was needed: the RCC had (in its own mind) replaced Jesus with the pope as head of the church.