Thanks for the response. I have a lot of respect for the diligence you demonstrate in your studies, and in all of your posts. However, I think you are mixing some concepts when it comes to understanding the Church. "Catholic" is just a Greek word for the Church. The Church existed before it was named. It was created at the moment Jesus ordained Peter (Matthew 16:18), and consecrated at Pentecost. Greek was the prominent language, so the Catholic name stuck and we still use it today.
Don't get me wrong, Catholics recognize an invisible "church" of all followers of Christ, but the capital "C" Church is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the visible Church, the root of the vine, and the lower-c are those who are connected to various degrees. Scripture says that they'll come from all directions to sit at the table of God, and that if they are not against you, they are for you.
All people are fallible, and I hope you agree that what matters is Doctrine. I researched the history with 3 canon lawyers and found that the Catholic Church has never had a Doctrine change in 2000 years. As Malachi 3:6 says "For I am the Lord, I change not". This helped convince me that it is governed by the Holy Spirit. No Human institution has a track record like that. Based on your posts, it seems like you have not yet understood the difference between various Church activity (including misteps) and official Doctrine. Canonizing the Bible is an example of the Church declaring something as Infallible Doctrine. Infallible Doctrine strictly pertains only to matters of "Faith and Morals", speaking ex-Cathedra (in the Chair of Peter) and the teaching has to apply to the entire Church. If you study Peter's statements in Acts, you'll see this same requirement being met.
> He ended up taking the position that no man could be saved except by submission the bishop—a clearly unbiblical doctrine, but one that has continued to this day in the RC church.
I have good news for you! That has never been a Doctrine of the Church! I don't blame you for having a misunderstanding, because I see it misquoted too. Each bishop does have some provisional authority, but only the Chair of Peter has authority on Doctrine. Please let me know if you want me to find an authority that will verify this for you. Here is a link to the Catechism on the ecclesial ministry (
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm), but please be careful when reading the Catechism. The Catechism contains summarized guidelines, not the Canon law itself. It is often misquoted because of things like pastoral practice and provisional authority. For example, if you go around preaching that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God, the local Bishop will call you under his authority. If not, you will be defrocked of your priesthood. I want such authority to be in place. The Church has only one (1) Doctrine and it is maintained world wide. After my Baptism of faith, I went church shopping. I was crestfallen at how ministers would open churches without any consistency. When they disagreed with their fellow pastors on doctrines, they would just split off and go down the road and open a new church. I hope you agree that it is not good fo people to be teaching their own interpretations.
> But the Church was no stranger to attacks, and it was rife with disagreements. Irenaeus fought against the Gnostics arguing that the teachings of Jesus weren't secrets passed on to initiates only,
Amen! There were over 30 heresies on the Trinity alone that the Church stood against over the centuries. That is another reason why I believe the Holy Spirit has been protecting its Doctrines. No Human institution could have done that, and gotten it right the first time. The Doctrine of the Trinity may seem simple, but it was hard to establish Jesus as fully God and fully Man. People still try to undo that. Even today, the world is putting tremendous pressure on churches to condone gay "marriage", ordination of women and even contraception. The Church always gets Doctrines right. Not because of the people, but by the grace of God.
> By the 6th c., the Roman Church had instituted infant baptism
The Church always practiced infant baptisms because that's what Christ and the Apostles taught. The Church just took a while to write it down as Doctrine. As Paul recalls in 1 Corinthians 1:16, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas". Please read this for the scriptural and historical support:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism> single authority does make a noble attempt at keeping the church unified and keeping teaching tied together, but it also tends to squelch healthy debate and allow people their differences, as well as to motivate people to power.
Amen. The Church does not only encourages debate, but it makes it part of the required process for running the Church. There is a formal panel of Cardinals who focus on how Doctrines are implemented. It's like a court. Each of those Cardinals is a world-class scholar. They've had to push back on Pope Francis a few times. Lord help us.
During Islamic invasions and other turmoils, the Church was in distress and we had some very bad Popes. Peter himself denied Jesus 3 times. Through all that, the Doctrines never got corrupted. Again, the Church is ultimately its Doctrines. I recommend looking past the superficial stuff. Most of the Apostles smelled like fish, and they hung out with ex-prostitutes and tax collectors.
> Through the Byzantine era there were innumerable godly people (Gregory the Great, Nicholas I) and heretics alike (9th-10th c.) in power over the church.
Right, but they never corrupted Doctrine. Pope Stephen VI was particularly bad, 896-897. Again, he never corrupted Doctrine. If one worships the Pope or expects him to be wholly infallible, that would be a new religion called Popism. The only Infallibility the Pope has is on speaking on matters of "Faith and Morals" in context of the whole Church. Not baseball scores, not immigration, not climate change, not politics. Luke 22:31-32 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." In other words, Satan is sifting everyone, including Popes. Only the Doctrines are protected.
> By 1054 the Church split into East and West due to doctrinal battles and the claims of the papacy.
The Catholic Church never split. Whoever sticks under the Chair of Peter remains unified with the way Christ created the Church. The Eastern orthodox is in schism. If you notice, they started developing Doctrinal errors since then. Divorces, etcetera. The Catholic Church still recognizes much of their practices as valid, but they are getting more and more error the longer they stay away. There is hope for re-unfication of all those who left, and the Eastern orthodox might be one of the first major ones to come back.
> Luther was one in a chain of reformers
Luther did not reform anything. He started a new religion with his man-made doctrines. Within his own lifetime, there were 40 more sub-factions within his faction, each with a new twist on their doctrines. He regretted it as various times. As Christ said, those who are not with me scatter.
The Church did have corruption that needed to be addressed. Luther was supposed to help fix that, not start a new religion.
The Church did have a counter-reformation, which was real reform:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04437a.htm> the RC Church has strayed from biblical teaching
Not really. The Church did get lazy with teaching scripture, but it is making a comeback. It is impossible for the Church to stray from biblical Doctrines, because Catholic Doctrines have the same author as the Bible: The Holy Spirit.
> each person is free to read and interpret the Scriptures for himself
Certainly, but you shouldn't make up your own doctrines, agreed?
Sola Scripture and Sola Fide are not Biblical:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scripturaHopefully none of this comes across the wrong way. I hope you consider me a brother in Christ. I was a harsh critic of the Catholic Church for most of my life, so it was especially hard for me to accept it. I had to drop a lot of pride. I later realized that God wants us without our pride, and my faith bloomed. Later, I experienced a few small miracles in the Church that makes my faith unshakable. I think Christ is okay with people being outside of the Church for various reasons, but ideally, He wants everyone to follow His Doctrines.
If you have time sometime, I would love to hear your interpretation of John 6:48-71.
God bless.