lozeerose graced us with his presence on the previous post and inundated us with prooftexts for the unquestioned authority of the Roman Church. I have some questions and comments on that whole mess. Also of note is Vox Veritatis' interaction with these statements in the same combox.
What Vox said.
Also, I have some questions for you, and there will be some overlap.
You cited a zillion out-of-context Bible psgs. Why do that if I have no "authority to interpret" them? Why give with one hand and take back with the other? For that matter, on what basis do YOU cite them? Do you have some sort of authority to interpret them?
The Church indeed teaches on the permanence of marriage.
Is that just your interpretation? Why should anyone accept your individual fallible non-authoritative word for it?
If your response resembles: "Well, just read the Church docs for yourself," then
1) How would that help? My interp wouldn't be authoritative.
2) Why is it possible to read Church docs but not Scripture?
If you are suggesting that we accept the RCC a priori as the infallible interpreter, please let me know why I should. After all, there's lots of competition out there for that spot! EOC, the Watchtower, the LDS, David Koresh, José Luís de Jesús Miranda, etc. If your response resembles: "Just check which church has the pedigree and the line of apostolic succession," then
1) EOC claims the same thing. How can I know who's right?
2) Is it just your non-authoritative interp that apostolic succession/pedigree are the hallmarks of The One True Church®?
3) If I were in fact to check apostolic succession, wouldn't that be non-authoritative interp on my part? If you proceed to tell me to give up on that personal interp stuff, isn't that begging the entire question?
4) If JW/LDS, for example, is the infallible interpreter, wouldn't their interpretation of church history (including a Great Apostasy and later Restoration) be correct by definition, since it's infallible? (This will require that you examine the power of presuppositions. Here's hoping you do better on this count than other RCs I've met.)
You suggest that "disunity" in the church is impossible to consider. I submit to you the following:
1) You have apparently not wrestled with the interplay that "pro-unity" psgs like the ones you cited have with "a certain amount of diversity is tolerable, b/c 1) God has ordained that there would be some disagreement, for a particular reason; and 2) we are not yet in the Eschaton and sin and limited biblical knowledge and understanding exist in everyone" psgs such as 1 John 2, 1 Cor 8, Romans 14, 1 Cor 11:18-19, and Jesus' High Priestly prayer in John 17.
2) "Sacred Tradition" doesn't produce unity either. In fact, it produces LESS unity than does Sola Scriptura.
3) You live in a fantasy land if you think RCC has "unity" as you're proposing is necessary to be a valid and true church.
4) What's more, you're instating an over-realised eschatology. There's a reason why this is not Heaven. (Unfortunately, holding close to official RCC dogma will ensure you never see Heaven.)
To illustrate this point, let me take this statement of yours:
if there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Scripture?
If there is only one God (in this case the Holy Spirit), then can there be various, differing (sometimes drastically) interpretations of Sacred Tradition?
Since the answer is apparently a big "Yes", then that's my answer to your own question.
if you are inspired by the Holy Spirit and I as well
As Vox said, neither of us are, so let's wave good-bye to that "if".
1 Tim 3:15, "the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth," which church does is he speaking of?
1) He's speaking of the local church of Ephesus. Easy enough.
2) Did you ever stop to consider that a pillar and bulwark hold something else (ie, the Scripture) up?
3) Since you're big into Sacred Tradition, why did Irenæus apply the words "ground and pillar of our faith" to the Scripture, not the church, and especially not the church or bishop of Rome?
Finally, on annulments, I know what the Church *claims*. I'm unimpressed with empty claims. If you take a married couple and "annul" the marriage after children have been produced, that's a divorce. It's not as if the marriage never took place! If so, whence the children?
This reminds me of past Popes' debauched lifestyles. Y'all RCs are quick to remind us that Popes are not impeccable, but then you point out when Protestant pastors have engaged in sexual immorality. According to 1 Timothy and Titus, these pastors are not fit for leadership and should be removed. If so, so should these Popes have been removed. They were not, but biblically, they were disqualified from eldership/bishopric. Yet they stayed in their positions. Yet biblically they were not true elders. Then you have the gall to claim unbroken succession. The whole thing is laughable.