A middle ages question.

[Diamond72]

Well, look around you at all the groups and free-lance individuals who think that and it is evident that the Holy Spirit isn't teaching everyone the same things; everyone has their own spin on scripture and their own doctrinal twists. They all claim that the Holy Spirit and their bible is all they need for doctrine, clearly they need more because they cannot agree.

Do you think you are God's gift to man and you can straighten them out and set them right? What did Jesus say about the blind leading the blind?

Matthew 15:14 (NIV): "Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."
In this context, Jesus is addressing the Pharisees and religious leaders who were criticizing him for not following certain religious traditions and customs. He uses the metaphor of "the blind leading the blind" to emphasize that these leaders were spiritually misguided and were not providing proper guidance to the people.
The message is a warning about the dangers of following those who lack true spiritual insight and understanding. It highlights the importance of seeking genuine spiritual guidance and discernment.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Do you think you are God's gift to man and you can straighten them out and set them right?

Oh no, not in the least; it is the Church that is God's gift to humanity and especially to believers.

What did Jesus say about the blind leading the blind?

Perhaps you can explain what you mean here.

Matthew 15:14 (NIV): "Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."
In this context, Jesus is addressing the Pharisees and religious leaders who were criticizing him for not following certain religious traditions and customs. He uses the metaphor of "the blind leading the blind" to emphasize that these leaders were spiritually misguided and were not providing proper guidance to the people.
The message is a warning about the dangers of following those who lack true spiritual insight and understanding. It highlights the importance of seeking genuine spiritual guidance and discernment.

Let's take a wider look at the context.

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him' unclean.' " Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?" He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit." Peter said, "Explain the parable to us." Are you still so dull? Jesus asked them. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' " ​

Matthew 15:10-20 NIV
The lesson appears to be that a person is accepted by God because what comes from his heart is good and his deeds are from the heart, but the wicked produce wicked deeds from their hearts. The Pharisees produce wicked deeds, such as plotting Jesus murder, so do not follow them, they claim to see but are blind and they will lead those who are wicked like they are into destruction.

 

[Diamond72]

Perhaps you can explain what you mean here.

The message is a warning about the dangers of following those who lack true spiritual insight and understanding. It highlights the importance of seeking genuine spiritual guidance and discernment.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The message is a warning about the dangers of following those who lack true spiritual insight and understanding. It highlights the importance of seeking genuine spiritual guidance and discernment.

Too abbreviated and hence inaccurate,

The lesson appears to be that a person is accepted by God because what comes from his heart is good and his deeds are from the heart, but the wicked produce wicked deeds from their hearts. The Pharisees produce wicked deeds, such as plotting Jesus murder, so do not follow them, they claim to see but are blind and they will lead those who are wicked like they are into destruction.​

 

[Fervent]

I know there are a lot of Catholic bashers out there. They just do not convince me.

There certainly are, but I don't consider examining the historical evidence for the claims to be bashing,

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

There certainly are, but I don't consider examining the historical evidence for the claims to be bashing,

You know, I am musing here, it isn't the history that bashes it is the telling and the way it is told that bashes. Many a time I have heard of Torquemada and his alleged thousands or millions of Spanish Inquest victims; in those tales it is history that there was a Torquemada and that his time as arch-inquisitor was hard for some because of excessive scruples applied to Jews and Muslims and the few Protestants that were in Spain, but the numbers alleged in the telling of the stories are so hugely exaggerated as to make the stories into bashing and polemics filled with part truth and big lies.

 

[Fervent]

You know, I am musing here, it isn't the history that bashes it is the telling and the way it is told that bashes. Many a time I have heard of Torquemada and his alleged thousands or millions of Spanish Inquest victims; in those tales it is history that there was a Torquemada and that his time as arch-inquisitor was hard for some because of excessive scruples applied to Jews and Muslims and the few Protestants that were in Spain, but the numbers alleged in the telling of the stories are so hugely exaggerated as to make the stories into bashing and polemics filled with part truth and big lies.

There definitely can be bashing with false tellings of history, but again I don't consider looking at the historical evidence of things that the Roman Catholic Church claims to be true a matter of bashing. Especially regarding claims of Petrine succession and similar related issues that have a major impact on the legitimacy of the authority of the Roman magistrate.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Petrine succession

What is it that you doubt on this matter?

 

[Fervent]

What is it that you doubt on this matter?

A whole slew of things but 3 are most pressing, first that any of the apostles were bishops in the modern monarchical sense, second that even if they were that Peter was ever monarchical bishop in Rome, third that there has been an unbroken successive line of popes due to the various times there were multiple "popes" and the Avignon "papacy".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

A whole slew of things but 3 are most pressing, first that any of the apostles were bishops in the modern monarchical sense, second that even if they were that Peter was ever monarchical bishop in Rome, third that there has been an unbroken successive line of popes due to the various times there were multiple "popes" and the Avignon "papacy".

All of these issues have been dealt with rather comprehensively by the curia. Your stated issues are far from unanswered.

 

[Fervent]

All of these issues have been dealt with rather comprehensively by the curia. Your stated issues are far from unanswered.

I have yet to see a compelling case made that isn't question begging.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

A whole slew of things but 3 are most pressing, first that any of the apostles were bishops in the modern monarchical sense, second that even if they were that Peter was ever monarchical bishop in Rome, third that there has been an unbroken successive line of popes due to the various times there were multiple "popes" and the Avignon "papacy".

All of these issues have been dealt with rather comprehensively by the curia. Your stated issues are far from unanswered.

I have yet to see a compelling case made that isn't question begging.

look harder.

 

[Fervent]

All of these issues have been dealt with rather comprehensively by the curia. Your stated issues are far from unanswered.

look harder.

Care to make a suggestion?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Care to make a suggestion?

Start with the list of popes, look at a history that deals with it, but use a Catholic history rather than a sceptic's history.

 

[Fervent]

Start with the list of popes, look at a history that deals with it, but use a Catholic history rather than a sceptic's history.

A Catholic history would most likely be question begging, I prefer to use sources that are removed from the question as much as possible. I've been through the development of the list of popes and seen the competing lists from the middle ages that never agreed until around Stephen and thenn of course with the anti-pope issues could only say so retroactively and not when the multiple popes were in operation so it becomes a counter-factual faith that is necessary. Though my most pressing objection is the monarchical bishop, because honestly if I found a compelling case that such a thing actually existed from the beginning I would be Eastern Orthodox since I already tend to agree with what I know of Orthodox theology far more than most protestant theology.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

A Catholic history would most likely be question begging, I prefer to use sources that are removed from the question as much as possible.

Well, look harder; try a Catholic source.

 

[Fervent]

Well, look harder; try a Catholic source.

Care to suggest one?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Care to suggest one?

for a non-Catholic source, use this List of popes - Wikipedia

 

[Fervent]

for a non-Catholic source, use this List of popes - Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a good source for much more than a simple overview, especially for contentious issues that often lead to motivated editors skewing the pages. Got anything more academic you would recommend?

Though i will point out that the wikipedia article admits my contention pretty early:
"Published every year by the Roman Curia, the Annuario Pontificio no longer identifies popes by regnal number, stating that it is impossible to decide which pope represented the legitimate succession at various times."

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Wikipedia is not a good source for much more than a simple overview, especially for contentious issues that often lead to motivated editors skewing the pages. Got anything more academic you would recommend?

If you want an academic history then you'll need to find one for yourself.