What do you mean? Are you saying that the RCC (along with its Tradition and its Magisterium) existed at the time Adam and Eve ate the fruit? I thought that the church was founded by Christ and the apostles. Could you please explain what you mean here?
Christ is God.
Just as God directly instructed Adam and Eve, He directly instructs the Pope as He guides the Church. The Pope is only the latest in a long line of intermediaries God has employed since The Fall to guide His people.
Abraham. Noah. Moses. The High Priest of the Temple.
God did not write down His instructions to His intermediaries as a matter of course (although the Muslims claim He wrote the Koran). He taught them. When Christ came, he didn’t write anything down at all, from what we can tell (he drew in the dirt, but we’re not told what if anything he drew). He taught.
When Christ returned, he didn’t hand the Apostles the New Testament. He taught them.
This teaching, this Tradition, is a key component of Christ’s Church. The authority to teach is not granted to everyone, but stems from the Magisterium, the authority, of the Church as given to Peter by Christ when he founded it.
Thus, Christ’s Church consists of Magisterium, Tradition, and Scripture. Magisterium provides the authority of Christ. Tradition faithfully preserves Christ’s ministry. And Scripture records the public revelation of God.
Magisterium. Tradition. Scripture.
What non sequiturs? Again, the basis for your objection is very unclear. I’ll gladly respond if you will clarify how my last line was a non sequitur.
Your interjection of Adam and Eve was an attempt to criticize the Church. I merely pointed out that Adam and Eve are a curious choice for any Protestant to reference, as they had no Scripture whatsoever; only direct transmission of Tradition from the Magisterium of God. Adam and Eve are a pretty clear refutation of the notion of sola scriptura, one of the key underpinnings of Protestant theology. The Fall also represents a complete dismantling of sola fide as Adam and Eve certainly believed in God, certainly depended on God—they simply undertook an action, sin, which resulted in the loss of their immortality. This is probably why some Protestants don’t believe in original sin at all.
Non sequiturs are complete irrelevancies to an argument interjected typically to waylay it. I never claimed Adam and Eve had any excuse for their sin—indeed, as a Catholic, I believe Adam and Eve were solely responsible for their sin. Introducing the false notion that I argued that Scripture not existing excused Adam and Eve is a non sequitur. As noted, I pointed out the lack of Scripture simply because Protestants tend to conveniently forget that it did not exist in any form for much of the time since Man was created. Moses came very late in the day in this regard.
Likewise, insinuating that the Catholic Church is somehow the serpent in the garden is a non sequitur. Indeed, it is a particularly silly one since the same principle is far more easily applied to the 30,000 Protestant denominations, all claiming the guidance of God, yet all teaching vastly different and contradictory things. Far likelier that Satan’s speaking to some of these folks than to the Pope—the Catholic Church has the benefit of consistent doctrine at least. Indeed, disagreeing with the Catholic Church is about the only thing Protestants agree upon these days!