No, but thanks. It is your church's practise to use history and it's links to the apostles as proof evident of your church's valid claims to truth, authority, and right to dominate the world.
The Lord's command to "preach the Gospel to all nations" does not mean "world domination".
Authority does not mean
dominating dictatorship, a fear mongering theme that shows up in a lot of your posts.
I am simply pointing out that it doesn't work that way.
No, it doesn't.
Dominating dictatorship is more in line with Marx and Lenin's theories of the Church.
Many lines of Christian faith had their roots in the apostles, and possibly more deeper than Rome's. Alexandria certainly is a case in point, but gnosticism was a thorn in its side they never expelled, but carried into Rome.
Really? Then prove gnostic tendencies, even remotely, existed in any formal teaching in any century, or stop lying.
Constantinople was merely the result of an argument over who had rightful authority over the church. Both were wrong.
You and others here have a fixation on requiring others, may demanding others, surrender to Rome's authority in pastoral and doctrinal matters, and should we refuse, there are intimations we are somehow less Christian. I find it numbingly frustrating that Catholics who frequent forums; Catholics who are without doubt more connected to their church than the vast majority and more invested in Catholic faith and practise, cannot understand that submitting to Papal authority (and the council of Trent), as in centuries past being an absolute criteria to membership, holds immense impact on our relationship with Jesus. And what impact is that? We are replacing Christ with a vicar of Christ. Sorry my friend, but ought we not cleave to the real rather than surrender to a self exalting deputy with all the faults and failings as the rest of us?
Vatican II reformulated the Council of Trent, but you don't want to go there.
"We are replacing Christ with a vicar of Christ" a gross misrepresentation of the papacy, another one of your phantoms of your own creation. "Vicar" means ambassador, it does not mean "equal to".
1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the
biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the
history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian
morality,
spirituality,
social ethic, and
philosophy.
2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is
true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.
3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its
interpretation of the Bible (e.g., “faith alone” and its missing many other “Catholic” doctrines – see evidences below),
inconsistently selective in its espousal of various doctrines of Catholic Tradition (e.g., the canon of the Bible), inadequate in its
ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of
Christian history (e.g., “Scripture alone”; ignorance or inconsistent understanding of of development of doctrine), compromised
morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically
schismatic and (in effect, or logical reduction, if not always in actual belief)
relativistic.
Disclaimer: I don’t therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot – indeed, I think it is a pretty
good thing overall), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the “theory” of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.
Simple listing of 150 reasons in favor of the Catholic faith, featuring 300 biblical evidences favoring Catholicism, listed for reference purposes.
www.patheos.com