Actually the only transcendent substantive body of Truth that the Spirit of God affirms is wholly inspired of Him is that which is called Scripture.
I don't think the Bible says that.
You don't? Then you need to read it and find any other such body of Truth of which it is said,
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)
Now go find where;
1. it is said that all oral tradition (extraScriptural transmission) is given by inspiration of God, or;
2. that all that the church ever officially formally declares on faith and morals to all the church will be given by inspiration of God, or even that it will be true since the church possesses the gift of (conditional) ensured veracity;
3. including whatever she says is the oral word of God, and that this is assuredly the case since the church possesses the gift of #2.
And how this is charism is essential to know what is of God and its meaning, since that is the real basis for assurance for faithful RCs.
Christians in the Bible went by the Word of God in written and oral form.
But upon what basis do we know that either was indeed the word of God? See last question.
I do agree that the Scriptures are an essential part the Word of God,
But you hold that when the pope or councils with the pope speak infallibly then that is also the word of God? Are they speaking as wholly inspired vessels of God as with Scripture? And that thus they cannot contradict Scripture, while church law is the supreme law?
which teaches that Mary is the Immaculate Conception.
No, it does not, and you or your sources are utterly unable to show that Scripture teaches this, nor was the weight of Scriptural warrant the basis for thus, but from which Caths attempt to extrapolate support from due to challenges from evangelical types.
“Christians have never gone to Scripture for proof of their doctrines until there was actual need, from the pressure of controversy...” — Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey" contained in Newman's "Difficulties of Anglicans" Volume II, Dignity of Mary
It may seem better to rely on Scripture alone, but what that ultimately means--even after seeking help from extra-Biblical sources-
You are contradicting yourself. If one is doing the latter then he is not doing the former. And while Scripture alone is the wholly inspired standard and sufficient in its formal and material aspects, providing the Truth needed for salvation and growth in grace, this do not exclude the church.
Even Westminster Confession (which in some places could use better description ) states, "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith," etc., yet "All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both." (Westminster, XXXI)
--is relying on one's self as the final judge of the meaning of Scripture. This leads to many errors, since our strength is in the Body of Christ, the Son of Mary our Queen and not as isolated members.
Habitually repeating mandatory adoration of the unscriptural mary of Catholicism is actually an argument against you, while your argument also applies to relying on the church alone, with its sanctioned help from extra-Biblical sources, to know what is of God, is actually relying on one's self as the final judge of the meaning of Scripture and leads to many errors.
For the fact is that RCs can interpret their supreme authority like as evangelicals can, and in fact those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death
are less unified in core beliefs and values overall than those who hold the strongest view of Scripture.
And do not resort to the "living magisterium" argument, for RCs hope in vain for timely definitive answers from popes and councils, and which, when they teach, can actually result in more confusion and or division.
As one poster wryly commented,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan,
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
Thus relying on men as the sure and supreme authorities on Truth, while attractive, means being subject to change, as
V2 examples, while Scripture does not change.
And while relying on the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power for the veracity of teaching and unity opens up to the door for competing claims, yet this is how the church began, and requires overcoming evil with God, versus veracity resting upon the premise of ensured magisterial veracity, as per Rome and cults.
Meanwhile, although many RCs cherish a mythical view of their church, and dismiss liberals from being Catholics, contrary to Rome's manifest judgment, the fact is that what doctrinal unity Rome can claim is limited and largely on paper, while her fruit is all over the map.
