What circular part? The original is well established with the creation of the Church by Christ

>Scripture is not the basis of Christianity

>uses scripture to prove point

So?

It is what Christ said, with or without scripture narrating it

I think you are mistaking consistency with circularity

All the pieces fit perfectly with each other, and you call it "circular"

Haha

It doesn't fit perfectly

You use mental gymnastics to shove it together

It does. An unbroken line of succession since Peter

Right

Things have been this way from the first christians

That was decided upon by a council

Irregardless of scripture

Because scripture is not the basis of Christianity

It is precisely through councils that the canon of the Bible was decided

Some centuries after Christ

But it's the one part and interpretation of scripture that you use to define everything you're saying

I'm talking the teachings of those who gave us scripture in the first place

Ok give me an second and let me see if I can explain it you how it comes across to me from your explanation

Without the Church, what you consider to be scripture is just another random collection of writtings

The church is what it is because the council decides the interpretation of scripture. But the only argument from what makes the council right is one part of scripture that means a specific interpretation to that specific council agreed upon? That is definitionally circular reasoning.

The Church exists because Christ created it, and scripture tells us about that creation, but things would be the same way, with or without scripture. The councils, with the final approval of the pope, are an exercise of the Church's authority. There councils result in things like the final canon of scripture, the interpretation of that scripture, and things that are not an interpretation of scripture, but obviously don't contradict the interpretations of scripture.

As it is obvious, the existence of the Church does not contradict scripture, and the creation of the Church is mentioned in Scripture. My mentions of that scripture is to show the contradictions in those who want to accept Scripture but reject the Church.

So everything that the Catholic Church has done, is doing and will do is entirely righteous because of the piece of scripture you quoted because the Church is infallible because of said scripture?

Why have you ignored everything I have said?

I haven't

I'm not trying to be difficult or straw man you

I'm honestly trying to understand

Everything the Catholic Church dogmatically declares, has declared and will declare is true because Christ created the Church and said the Gates of Hell would not prevail

Right

And those things happened before anyone wrote about them, and before such scriptures were declared canocical

So everything the Catholic Church has done, is doing and will do is entirely righteous because of that scripture?

The Church is infallible because of that scripture?

Everything the Catholic Church dogmatically declares, has declared and will declare is true because Christ created the Church and said the Gates of Hell would not prevail. And those things happened before anyone wrote about them, and before such scriptures were declared canocical

Are people who aren't apostles heretics and unable to do miracles and preach the gospel?

People who go against the dogmatically declared statements of the Church are heretics. That is precisely what DEFINES heresy: what goes against the magysterium

Now, with miracles I do not concern myself, and what they preach is what they preach, which may be correct or wrong

A heretic is someone who goes outside church dogma?

Precisely

Are they a believer?