Martin Luther was a good Catholic. Until he started reading for himself.
Martin Luther was a heretic and a schismatic. His actions were most deplorably divisive to the one true Church set up by Christ himself.
There was no succession of Peter. Peter may have been an apostle, but he was never a church leader in the modern sense of the word.
"Upon this Rock (Peter), the Church will be built." Yeah, I guess Christ was just joking around about Peter's leadership abilities.
All those powers given to the apostles? Only those who they lay hands on and gave those powers to were able to use them, and when they died, that generation, all connection to the apostles was cut.
Oh really? Have you ever read Butler's "Lives of the Saints", with the thousands of miracles that have taken place since the time of the apostles?
Succession? No. And it's an abomination to state something so untrue. But, they've never had much trouble distorting the truth in the past.
Christ founded the Church, and Peter was the first leader of the Church. There has been a continuous succession since the time of Christ. That's not an abomination - It's factual and true. Just because you're a schismatic Protestant, doesn't give you a right to defame the Church.
If we are to believe that the Bible is the final word, and if we are to believe that even in the days of the Apostles that the Church was set up as it was intended, then certainly there are a few problems for Catholics.
And what problems are these? Do tell. The Church, through the ages, has been the sole caregiver to the poorest of the poor, sending monks, priests, and nuns to remote parts of the world in some of the poorest regions of this planet - places other missionaries wouldn't even dare to tread. The Church has been instrumental in inculcating a solid moral foundation for our youth, through the countless schools and universities run by dedicated nuns and priests that earn little if anything for their devoted efforts.
For every negative accusation and falsehood that you claim against the Church, I can name a thousand positive, good deeds that the Church has done in return. Have there been bad apples? Of course. That happens in any institution. But the Church is the only institution I know of that publicly defends the rights of the unborn, is anti-war, and does everything it can to promote peace, harmony, and civility in this world - all the while being viciously attacked by critics such as yourself that are completely clueless and turn a blind eye to the good works of the Church through the ages.
Right out of the gate, even with the Apostles, there was zero differentiation between clergy and laity. No difference. There was no such thing in the early Church as clergy. All Christians were the same, each congregation was completely independent of the other, all worship was determined from the letters that we now call the New Testament, and no one man in any congregation had any more influence than the other ELDERS who by the way, were ALL married, and you can read the qualification of office in the New Testament for yourself.
It was a natural evolution for the Church to gain more organizational structure over time. Even in the early days of the Church, there were bishops and a hierarchical structure of authority.
Christ himself admonished his own Apostles to give up everything and follow Him - give up all material wealth, etc. Catholic priests are simply following the dictates of Christ Himself in giving up married life to follow Christ.
The Catholic Church was a political power, and had little to do with scriptural Christian practice. Ever really read what the Catholics believe, print, and teach?
Nonsense. The Church was founded to save souls. Papal authority stands higher than temporal or political authority.
The Catholic Church publicly publishes the "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is the compendium of the Church's belief system and teachings. It is right in line with Biblical teaching, and it is very pro-life, pro-family, and very much in defense of the poor. Only someone as arrogant as yourself would suggest otherwise.
Yes, partly due to the hand copying of the Bible, and partly due to the fact that they COULDN"T teach the Bible to the people for fear of exposing their own counter teachings, the Bible was basically withheld for about 1260 years.
This is pure baloney. In centuries past, most people could barely read or write, and the Church was simply trying to protect its lay followers from being misled by heretics and schismatics that would twist the words of the Bible towards their own evil ends.
You are completely distorting historical facts, and failing to take the Church's teaching in historical context.
It is only in our modern age where reading and writing is common (or not so common as evident by our culture's fascination with TV, Internet, video games, and the like).
Back centuries ago, most people lived on farms or in small villages - They were uneducated and poor. They did not have access to a good education. They couldn't read or write.
It was the responsibility of the Church to defend these uneducated laity from the wicked snares of the Protestant devils that were twisting the words of the Bible for their own wicked, schismatic means. Even today, self-proclaimed Bible "experts" twist the words of the Bible to defame the Church, much as you have done so in your postings here.
Isn't it funny how you absolutely ignore all the positives that the Church has brought to the world? More prayer, strong moral standards, serving the needs of the poor and homeless, saving souls. Funny how you gloss over those good parts of the Church.
