The blessing and the curse of personal interpretation of scripture

[Root of Jesse]

So your claim that Paul went to Peter to determine his orthodoxy is false since he had to correct Peter's doctrine.

No, neither one excludes the other.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Great post! One of the things that bothers me most about Bibles such as the King James version is that the text has been butchered by dividing it up into individual verses. That formatting has completely disrupted the narrative flow of the text and leads to the many distortions that people artificially create. The better modern translations, while keeping the numbers for reference, divide the text logically into paragraphs (or poetic formats).

And yes, the Catholics fail to mention Matthew 16:23, "But he [Jesus] turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”

No, we don't. We apply it in proper context. As opposed to excising 7 complete books of Scripture.
You guys ignore or misinterpret so many things. Like Biden wiping out Trump policies just because they came from Trump. You leave out seven books which show most of the sacraments and practices of the Catholic Church, including praying for the dead, giving alms in penance after confessing sins.

 

[Fervent]

No, neither one excludes the other.

The closest we have to Paul seeking approval is his visit to the Jerusalem council in Acts, simply mentioning visiting Peter in Galatians does not imply submission and Paul's words in opposition to Peter indicate that he wasn't deferring to Peter's opinion or looking for him to shape his doctrine. Peter confirms that Paul's doctrine is Paul's doctrine in his letters where he tells the audience Paul speaks of things that are difficult to understand.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The closest we have to Paul seeking approval is his visit to the Jerusalem council in Acts, simply mentioning visiting Peter in Galatians does not imply submission and Paul's words in opposition to Peter indicate that he wasn't deferring to Peter's opinion or looking for him to shape his doctrine. Peter confirms that Paul's doctrine is Paul's doctrine in his letters where he tells the audience Paul speaks of things that are difficult to understand.

Proves only one thing. Pope Fervent is pope of Himself, and without context from those closer to the situation, goes off in the weeds just to try to prove Catholicism wrong.

 

[fhansen]

Scripture was written by God, through quills of men He appointed.

Dang-I forgot. Next time I'll say, “God taught such and such in Romans, (through Paul, in case that bit of trivia matters to anyone)…”.

What are you speaking of when you speak of "the church?" Because it seems to me from your example alone, as we have been through, it should be clear that the modern structure at Rome with its Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests is something that developed much later than the Scripture was written.

The basic structure was in place. If you're asserting that the church should've remained looking exactly the same as it originally did, however, that would be nonsense. We haven't lived through anything like the times she lived through, and Constantine could even be viewed as a pawn, again, used by God this time for the purpose of stabilizing the church so it could grow and spread the message much more quickly. Either way it’s obvious that the church had the freedom with the Edict of Milan to continue to practice the faith as it believed God willed it to, and not according to anyone else’s will. The church would go on to convene more councils, the 2nd council of orange, again, being one where doctrines of God's grace were so solidly and exhaustively laid down over 1000 years before the Reformation that any Protestant thinking they invented or at least implemented the concepts would do a double-take on that.

The nascent church of the 1st-3rd century was much more like the protestant churches in make up with a loose federation

There's no federation. There's nothing that could call anything like an ecumenical council together. There's really just a bunch of mavericks at the end of the day, although those denominations that value and toe more of the traditional Christian line will be more closely united to the gospel-truth.

The Catholic Church corporation is nothing more than a Frankenstein's monster that came from the interchange between secular and religious authority over the centuries and nothing more.

That's so lame! History by the Da Vinci Code and other pop-mythology based on some truth, half-truths, and outright lies. Yes, the church gradually became an integral part of western society, and arguably too close to civil authority with too much temporal power. That was the world she found herself in though and it appeared to some, for a time, that God’s kingdom might actually be realized here on earth. The world she lived in was moving headlong into the dark ages in any case, and she was to become a stabilizing and only unifying force between greatly competing interests and rulerships. Politics and later political intrigue became the order of the day at certain times it seemed, and it would take centuries -and abuse of that power at times- before the church would become more distanced from mundane matters as it returned to greater emphasis on the spiritual while not ending up oblivious to practical matters of inspiring and working towards morality and peace and justice and overall improvement in living conditions in this world.

From early on this harlot of Babylon, the Big Bad Catholic Church, would do some curious things. Her monks preserved learning in the west in monasteries through the dark ages and began to develop the lower and upper level educational systems in Europe, the upper levels evolving into the university system. Her people, God’s people, leaders and laity inspired by the gospel ideals given them, would volunteer countless hours of time and amounts of wealth to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, multitudes of hospitals and schools and orphanages would be built while hope and light and love and reason and order would be offered in a dark and hopeless and chaotic and lost and dying world. The promotion of arts and science and the pursuit of excellence in general would all flow from that emulation of and orientation towards something higher, Something better- where that goodness and order reside. I think we’re voluntarily returning to the darkness now, where cynicism, hopelessness and faithlessness are increasingly the new order all over again, where love is crucified at the altar of human “freedom”. Scandals such as those committed by the Church's own people stem from that.

But we can dismiss all of that as trivial and focus only on any bad stuff Catholic people did. Then, whenever any skeletons show up in Protestants closets we can still always say, “Well, that was them" since the federation is so loosely defined. “I’m this denomination or that-or non-denominational- better yet!”

 

[Root of Jesse]

The closest we have to Paul seeking approval is his visit to the Jerusalem council in Acts, simply mentioning visiting Peter in Galatians does not imply submission and Paul's words in opposition to Peter indicate that he wasn't deferring to Peter's opinion or looking for him to shape his doctrine. Peter confirms that Paul's doctrine is Paul's doctrine in his letters where he tells the audience Paul speaks of things that are difficult to understand.

And actually, I don't think we know from Scripture that Paul was at the Council of Jerusalem. It's not recorded. But Galatians tells us that he went seeking the apostles in Jerusalem and only met with Peter and James, the brother of the Lord. Galatians 1:18-19. You're right, we don't know what they talked about, and that is an inference. But what do they have in common, except being called by Jesus to serve His Church???
The progression was a)Called by Christ, b)went into the wilderness to contemplate that encounter for 3 years, c)met with Cephas, d) went on missionary journeys. So it certainly seems that he conferred with Peter to be sure he was preaching the right things.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Dang-I forgot. Next time I'll say, “God taught such and such in Romans, (through Paul, in case that bit of trivia matters to anyone)…”.

The basic structure was in place. If you're asserting that the church should've remained looking exactly the same as it originally did, however, that would be nonsense. We haven't lived through anything like the times she lived through, and Constantine could even be viewed as a pawn, again, used by God this time for the purpose of stabilizing the church so it could grow and spread the message much more quickly. Either way it’s obvious that the church had the freedom with the Edict of Milan to continue to practice the faith as it believed God willed it to, and not according to anyone else’s will. The church would go on to convene more councils, the 2nd council of orange, again, being one where doctrines of God's grace were so solidly and exhaustively laid down over 1000 years before the Reformation that any Protestant thinking they invented or at least implemented the concepts would do a double-take on that.

There's no federation. There's nothing that could call anything like an ecumenical council together. There's really just a bunch of mavericks at the end of the day, although those denominations that value and toe more of the traditional Christian line will be more closely united to the gospel-truth.
That's so lame! History by the Da Vinci Code and other pop-mythology based on some truth, half-truths, and outright lies. Yes, the church gradually became an integral part of western society, and arguably too close to civil authority with too much temporal power. That was the world she found herself in though and it appeared to some, for a time, that God’s kingdom might actually be realized here on earth. The world she lived in was moving headlong into the dark ages in any case, and she was to become a stabilizing and only unifying force between greatly competing interests and rulerships. Politics and later political intrigue became the order of the day at certain times it seemed, and it would take centuries -and abuse of that power at times- before the church would become more distanced from mundane matters as it returned to greater emphasis on the spiritual while not ending up oblivious to practical matters of inspiring and working towards morality and peace and justice and overall improvement in living conditions in this world.

From early on this harlot of Babylon, the Big Bad Catholic Church, would do some curious things. Her monks preserved learning in the west in monasteries through the dark ages and began to develop the lower and upper level educational systems in Europe, the upper levels evolving into the university system. Her people, God’s people, leaders and laity inspired by the gospel ideals given them, would volunteer countless hours of time and amounts of wealth to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, multitudes of hospitals and schools and orphanages would be built while hope and light and love and reason and order would be offered in a dark and hopeless and chaotic and lost and dying world. The promotion of arts and science and the pursuit of excellence in general would all flow from that emulation of and orientation towards something higher, Something better- where that goodness and order reside. I think we’re voluntarily returning to the darkness now, where cynicism, hopelessness and faithlessness are increasingly the new order all over again, where love is crucified at the altar of human “freedom”. Scandals such as those committed by the Church's own people stem from that.

But we can dismiss all of that as trivial and focus only on any bad stuff Catholic people did. Then, whenever any skeletons show up in Protestants closets we can still always say, “Well, that was them" since the federation is so loosely defined. “I’m this denomination or that-or non-denominational- better yet!”

To the bolded, you have to realize that Constantine himself helped this along when he moved the government to Constantinople. ALL the government officials came from Rome to the new Imperial City, leaving a void in government of Rome, which Gregory the Great eventually had to take over, hence, the secularization of Catholicism.
I also agree that, when set against all the good Catholics (who acted Catholic) expending energy to further education, music, architecture, art, science in general, preservation of manuscripts, and so on, including performing works of mercy such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving drink to the thirsty, and comforting the afflicted, the problems that Catholics (by not acting Catholic as Christ commanded) are miniscule. You can always highlight the rebuke of St. Peter, forgetting how he grew the Church in Antioch and Rome. Why not point out how Paul was a persecutor before advocating the faith to the Mediterranean world??? And while we're at it, why not point to Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, Jimmy Swaggart and others for their foibles rather than showcase the good they did?
I think the point of the Gospels, in some ways, is that the apostles were painfully human, and yet Jesus chose them to be his, um, chosen to carry on the spread of the gospel.

 

[pescador]

But Catholics do acknowledge this verse-as it applies to so much of the Reformed position.

But it's not talking about the Reformed position, it is directly talking about Peter who spoke Satan's words. Catholics claim this section shows that Peter was "the first Pope", but obviously that's in error. Jesus referred to him as "Satan" and he denied knowing Jesus three times. IMHO those aren't desirable qualities for anyone, never mind the "Holy Father".

 

[Root of Jesse]

But it's not talking about the Reformed position, it is directly talking about Peter who spoke Satan's words. Catholics claim this section shows that Peter was "the first Pope", but obviously that's in error. Jesus referred to him as "Satan" and he denied knowing Jesus three times. IMHO those aren't desirable qualities for anyone, never mind the "Holy Father".

I guess you can't recognize that Peter said and did all his wrongs before being inspired by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
It's not obviously error, because it can be shown that the Church taught this from the beginning. Even Peter seemingly couldn't believe that Jesus chose him to be the leader. And it is also true that most of those chosen to be pope succeeding Peter didn't feel they were worthy of the call by God. Frankly, are any of us? And yet, didn't Jesus provide for the authoritative transmission of His faith? And if so, who are those who were identified? We can see in Scripture the call of all the apostles, Paul, and later on Timothy and Titus. It is so apparent that Jesus intended the passing on of His faith "Go out into all the world" teaching and baptizing.

 

[Fervent]

And actually, I don't think we know from Scripture that Paul was at the Council of Jerusalem. It's not recorded. But Galatians tells us that he went seeking the apostles in Jerusalem and only met with Peter and James, the brother of the Lord. Galatians 1:18-19. You're right, we don't know what they talked about, and that is an inference. But what do they have in common, except being called by Jesus to serve His Church???
The progression was a)Called by Christ, b)went into the wilderness to contemplate that encounter for 3 years, c)met with Cephas, d) went on missionary journeys. So it certainly seems that he conferred with Peter to be sure he was preaching the right things.

I see no reason to make such a leap, especially since that section is specifically laid out to deny that he received the gospel from any man. His meeting with Peter is peripheral and it would be in opposition to his statement "I received my gospel from no man, but from Jesus Christ" if what he meant was he received his gospel from Peter. Their spending time in fellowship in no way implies any sort of submission to orthodoxy or testing what he was given against Peter. He received it from Christ Himself, why would he then need Peter's approval?

 

[Fervent]

Dang-I forgot. Next time I'll say, “God taught such and such in Romans, (through Paul, in case that bit of trivia matters to anyone)…”.

The basic structure was in place. If you're asserting that the church should've remained looking exactly the same as it originally did, however, that would be nonsense. We haven't lived through anything like the times she lived through, and Constantine could even be viewed as a pawn, again, used by God this time for the purpose of stabilizing the church so it could grow and spread the message much more quickly. Either way it’s obvious that the church had the freedom with the Edict of Milan to continue to practice the faith as it believed God willed it to, and not according to anyone else’s will. The church would go on to convene more councils, the 2nd council of orange, again, being one where doctrines of God's grace were so solidly and exhaustively laid down over 1000 years before the Reformation that any Protestant thinking they invented or at least implemented the concepts would do a double-take on that.

No, there was no "basic structure" in place. Each city church operated largely independently, occasionally an issue would come up that would require the input of one of the 7 major churches but their "authority" wasn't based on apostolic succession or any such claim but simply because they had been formed earlier and were more familiar. There was no secret tradition handed down but everything was made as public and open with all believers being equal. The structure of the Catholic church came much, much later(beginning with Augustine).

There's no federation. There's nothing that could call anything like an ecumenical council together. There's really just a bunch of mavericks at the end of the day, although those denominations that value and toe more of the traditional Christian line will be more closely united to the gospel-truth.

There's as much of a federation as there was in the early church.

That's so lame! History by the Da Vinci Code and other pop-mythology based on some truth, half-truths, and outright lies. Yes, the church gradually became an integral part of western society, and arguably too close to civil authority with too much temporal power. That was the world she found herself in though and it appeared to some, for a time, that God’s kingdom might actually be realized here on earth. The world she lived in was moving headlong into the dark ages in any case, and she was to become a stabilizing and only unifying force between greatly competing interests and rulerships. Politics and later political intrigue became the order of the day at certain times it seemed, and it would take centuries -and abuse of that power at times- before the church would become more distanced from mundane matters as it returned to greater emphasis on the spiritual while not ending up oblivious to practical matters of inspiring and working towards morality and peace and justice and overall improvement in living conditions in this world.

From early on this harlot of Babylon, the Big Bad Catholic Church, would do some curious things. Her monks preserved learning in the west in monasteries through the dark ages and began to develop the lower and upper level educational systems in Europe, the upper levels evolving into the university system. Her people, God’s people, leaders and laity inspired by the gospel ideals given them, would volunteer countless hours of time and amounts of wealth to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, multitudes of hospitals and schools and orphanages would be built while hope and light and love and reason and order would be offered in a dark and hopeless and chaotic and lost and dying world. The promotion of arts and science and the pursuit of excellence in general would all flow from that emulation of and orientation towards something higher, Something better- where that goodness and order reside. I think we’re voluntarily returning to the darkness now, where cynicism, hopelessness and faithlessness are increasingly the new order all over again, where love is crucified at the altar of human “freedom”. Scandals such as those committed by the Church's own people stem from that.

But we can dismiss all of that as trivial and focus only on any bad stuff Catholic people did. Then, whenever any skeletons show up in Protestants closets we can still always say, “Well, that was them" since the federation is so loosely defined. “I’m this denomination or that-or non-denominational- better yet!”

No, that statement comes from actually studying church history at the college level. Interacting with source documents, tracking the development of various doctrine(such as the papacy and various monastic orders). The Catholic structure is more a result of medeival power struggles than anything tracking back through history. You speak of the things the Catholic church did, but you completely left off murdering people for preaching the gospel in languages people could understand, murdering people for translating the Bible into language that people could read, selling "the treasury of merit" in order to enrich themselves/build themselves fancier palaces and the various other crimes against the gospel commited by power hungry priests/bishops/popes.

 

[fhansen]

No, there was no "basic structure" in place. Each city church operated largely independently, occasionally an issue would come up that would require the input of one of the 7 major churches but their "authority" wasn't based on apostolic succession or any such claim but simply because they had been formed earlier and were more familiar. There was no secret tradition handed down but everything was made as public and open with all believers being equal. The structure of the Catholic church came much, much later(beginning with Augustine).

Thanks, always good to have the real facts about sketchily recorded non-essential events from 2000 years ago that others don't seem to have a direct scoop on. We know there were already overseers an elders for one thing though. Ignatius of Antioch wrote extensively about the role of bishops around 100 AD. Nicely speculated in any case.

There's as much of a federation as there was in the early church.

Great. Good to know you think so at least. Truth is we don't know huge amounts about the early Church. And surely organization would've been greater as time went on. But there was a basic set of beliefs and practices received by them all, with correction necessary at times by those overseeing them, and we have some testimony of ECFs, and we have present day churches in the east and west that carried through basic, and quite similar, em, traditions, to each other- as should only be expected.

You speak of the things the Catholic church did, but you completely left off murdering people for preaching the gospel in languages people could understand, murdering people for translating the Bible into language that people could read, selling "the treasury of merit" in order to enrich themselves/build themselves fancier palaces and the various other crimes against the gospel commited by power hungry priests/bishops/popes.

And if you’ve studied objectively, you’ll know that there are very similarly ugly skeletons in Protestant closets as well, as mentioned-in different and harsher times with less attention paid to the light and love that should’ve been reflected from their own gospels. Everyone’s grown better at that now IMO. And even in the past, good fruit far outweighed anything that surrounding civilization had produced overall. Never good enough but the quantity is absolutely amazing anyway. But I know, facts can be confusing-and modern day saints are so much holier and would've never participated in any kind of bad stuff if they'd been there.

 

[Fervent]

Thanks, always good to have the real facts about sketchily recorded non-essential events from 2000 years ago that others don't seem to have a direct scoop on. We know there were already overseers an elders for one thing though. Ignatius of Antioch wrote extensively about the role of bishops around 100 AD. Nicely speculated in any case.

In some city churches there was a single bishop, others were governed by a council(such as Rome) and still others were governed congregationally. The format of this discussion doesn't really warrant presentation of all the source documents, especially as the lack of structure is attested to by how Nicea came about.

Great. Good to know you think so at least. Truth is we don't know huge amounts about the early Church. And surely organization would've been greater as time went on. But there was a basic set of beliefs and practices received by them all, with correction necessary at times by those overseeing them, and we have some testimony of ECFs, and we have present day churches in the east and west that carried through basic, and quite similar, em, traditions, to each other- as should only be expected.

The issue is you're trying to claim that the Catholic church has a direct line of transmission of apostolic authority, so that lack of information about the early church is fairly damning. What we do know about the early church is sufficient to discard Catholic re-writings of history especially the claim of papal succession, as the source documents about how Rome was governed indicates that the claim of a single bishop arose much later, likely with Stephen(~250) but possibly as late as Leo(~310), and the question of whether Peter was ever a governmental official at Rome is highly dubious.

And if you’ve studied objectively, you’ll know that there are very similarly ugly skeletons in Protestant closets as well, as mentioned-in different and harsher times with less attention paid to the light and love that should’ve been reflected from their own gospels. Everyone’s grown better at that now IMO. And even in the past, good fruit far outweighed anything that surrounding civilization had produced overall. Never good enough but the quantity is absolutely amazing anyway. But I know, facts can be confusing-and modern day saints are so much holier and would've never participated in any kind of bad stuff if they'd been there.

This isn't about ugly skeletons, it's about Catholics upholding a false picture of history in an attempt to set the Catholic church up as in succession from the apostles in structure and governance. What is known of history is that the structure developed, and that development came about as a result of politics in order to facilitate the earthly authority of church officials. The only reason I brought up that ugliness is because you were attempting to create a false picture of the noble church when Catholic monks and clergy have been as responsible for thwarting preservation of history and learning as they have been of preserving it. Protestant churches don't claim a direct line of succession, so that some protestants have engaged in unChristian behavior isn't an issue like it is for the Catholic claim.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But it's not talking about the Reformed position, it is directly talking about Peter who spoke Satan's words. Catholics claim this section shows that Peter was "the first Pope", but obviously that's in error. Jesus referred to him as "Satan" and he denied knowing Jesus three times. IMHO those aren't desirable qualities for anyone, never mind the "Holy Father".

Funny you should not forgive Peter for his error. Jesus did, 3 times. "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" "Feed my sheep."
I know your 'humble' opinion, and the Church has said that it's wrong. And again, do you notice that all the apostles' recorded sins were before Pentecost? At Pentecost, Jesus kept His promise, to send the Holy Spirit to guide them (the apostles, specifically) in all truth. And from that day, no recorded sins of the apostles.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I see no reason to make such a leap, especially since that section is specifically laid out to deny that he received the gospel from any man. His meeting with Peter is peripheral and it would be in opposition to his statement "I received my gospel from no man, but from Jesus Christ" if what he meant was he received his gospel from Peter. Their spending time in fellowship in no way implies any sort of submission to orthodoxy or testing what he was given against Peter. He received it from Christ Himself, why would he then need Peter's approval?

I know you see no reason. You're not seeking the Truth of Catholicism. Of course, Paul didn't receive the gospel from any man. Neither did any of the other apostles.. But that doesn't preclude Paul checking with Peter to be sure he was teaching what they had both heard.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, there was no "basic structure" in place. Each city church operated largely independently, occasionally an issue would come up that would require the input of one of the 7 major churches but their "authority" wasn't based on apostolic succession or any such claim but simply because they had been formed earlier and were more familiar. There was no secret tradition handed down but everything was made as public and open with all believers being equal. The structure of the Catholic church came much, much later(beginning with Augustine).

I don't know if you're aware, but each city church today operates largely independently, and occasionally an issue will come up that requires the input of the council of bishops, and the pope. The letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians shows just such a thing. Paul had to write to the Corinthians twice, and Clement did so again, as the Pope.
You're right, though, there was no secret tradition, except those things that, prior to Constantine's legalization of Catholicism would have gotten the one holding the tradition killed. Those were learned after prior education into all the other Truths of the faith.

There's as much of a federation as there was in the early church.


No, that statement comes from actually studying church history at the college level. Interacting with source documents, tracking the development of various doctrine(such as the papacy and various monastic orders). The Catholic structure is more a result of medeival power struggles than anything tracking back through history. You speak of the things the Catholic church did, but you completely left off murdering people for preaching the gospel in languages people could understand, murdering people for translating the Bible into language that people could read, selling "the treasury of merit" in order to enrich themselves/build themselves fancier palaces and the various other crimes against the gospel commited by power hungry priests/bishops/popes.

I can gather that your college level courses were not taught by someone with knowledge of Catholic history. While it is true that the structure grew in the Dark and Middle Ages (which were not particularly dark or medieval) and that sometimes men sought secular and temporal power, so did Luther, Zwingli, Hus and Calvin seek secular and temporal power.
And again, you show your protestant bias if you actually believe the Church murdered people because they preached the gospel in different languages or translating the Bible. They did kill people, tragically, for preaching a wrong understanding of the gospel (misleading the general populace) and MIStranslating the Bible. Also, the Church never sanctioned selling indulgences, and neither can the Church be held responsible when some rogue monk or US President misleads people into believing non-doctrinal things.
I agree with you that priests and bishops are held to a higher standard, and those who misled their flocks have their own judgement, by God, to suffer. That does not change the truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church. It just points out that there were bad Catholics.

 

[fhansen]

especially as the lack of structure is attested to by how Nicea came about.

So you're saying that there was virtually no sense of identification of one church with the other, no sense of a unifying universal church and if they were aware of any doctrinal differences they wouldn't care about that anyway, just as Protestants maintain their own particular confessions and beliefs in any case?

 

[pescador]

But Catholics do acknowledge this verse-as it applies to so much of the Reformed position.

Can you spell "sophistry"?

 

[pescador]

No, there was no "basic structure" in place. Each city church operated largely independently, occasionally an issue would come up that would require the input of one of the 7 major churches but their "authority" wasn't based on apostolic succession or any such claim but simply because they had been formed earlier and were more familiar. There was no secret tradition handed down but everything was made as public and open with all believers being equal. The structure of the Catholic church came much, much later(beginning with Augustine).


There's as much of a federation as there was in the early church.


No, that statement comes from actually studying church history at the college level. Interacting with source documents, tracking the development of various doctrine(such as the papacy and various monastic orders). The Catholic structure is more a result of medeival power struggles than anything tracking back through history. You speak of the things the Catholic church did, but you completely left off murdering people for preaching the gospel in languages people could understand, murdering people for translating the Bible into language that people could read, selling "the treasury of merit" in order to enrich themselves/build themselves fancier palaces and the various other crimes against the gospel commited by power hungry priests/bishops/popes.

Great post!!

 

[pescador]

In some city churches there was a single bishop, others were governed by a council(such as Rome) and still others were governed congregationally. The format of this discussion doesn't really warrant presentation of all the source documents, especially as the lack of structure is attested to by how Nicea came about.


The issue is you're trying to claim that the Catholic church has a direct line of transmission of apostolic authority, so that lack of information about the early church is fairly damning. What we do know about the early church is sufficient to discard Catholic re-writings of history especially the claim of papal succession, as the source documents about how Rome was governed indicates that the claim of a single bishop arose much later, likely with Stephen(~250) but possibly as late as Leo(~310), and the question of whether Peter was ever a governmental official at Rome is highly dubious.


This isn't about ugly skeletons, it's about Catholics upholding a false picture of history in an attempt to set the Catholic church up as in succession from the apostles in structure and governance. What is known of history is that the structure developed, and that development came about as a result of politics in order to facilitate the earthly authority of church officials. The only reason I brought up that ugliness is because you were attempting to create a false picture of the noble church when Catholic monks and clergy have been as responsible for thwarting preservation of history and learning as they have been of preserving it. Protestant churches don't claim a direct line of succession, so that some protestants have engaged in unChristian behavior isn't an issue like it is for the Catholic claim.

Another great post!