Seems to me the Pope approved many of these very evil deeds in the Middle Ages. I see no way that he was the Lord's chosen in those days and if not there is no secession. Although there is none anyway. John was the last living Apostle with him ended God's Authority on Earth. But as Paul said All men have sin. The real problem is that there is no Revelation through a Prophet to put things back in order. John received many Revelations from God to make sure the Church was doing things correctly. This ended with John, since the Apostles stopped being replaced after the first three replacements. You do not even claim the Pope receives Revelations yet throughout the Old and New Testament this is ALWAYS the way God made sure the church kept on the right track.
As to babies, we leave the issue of babies who cannot have committed a sin to the infinite mercy of God.
This was not the teachings in the 40's. Once again proof that the Pope is very fallible.
We do have Apostles. We have their successors, the Bishops.<-i>
They had bishops in John's time as well. They were not Apostles. The Acts of the Apostles clearly shows that the concept of apostolic succession was contemplated when the remaining Apostles chose Judas' replacement(Mathias). This was not continued as Jesus knew the church would not last long, although his influence would.
Three Centuries latter some of the successors to these Bishops got together and created a Church but that is not what Christ created. He created a Church with a Prophet or Apostle to receive Revelations from him. These Bishops did not receive Revelations nor did they have Apostles. They did the best they could but Christ would not bless they with the complete Gospel as they were not worthy of it. Thus the Dark Ages.
I am not saying God does not love you or these Bishops in 323 AD. I am just saying that he determined they were not ready for his full Gospel and thus did not give it to them. The half baked religion they came up served his purpose of keeping his memory alive and giving the righteous a reason to be so. I am very thankful for the purpose the Catholic Church provided from then till now. But it is not the full Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I see you have been thoroughly educated about Catholicism by Catholic haters. You know we could really take off on your "religion" but if you noticed no Catholics have.
Once again you show your ignorance. You clearly do not understand the concept of infallibility as it is used in Catholicism. The pope is deemed infallible only when he says he is speaking infallibly. No pope to my knowledge has mabe any infallible pronouncement on the issue of babies who die without sin. Popes and other theologians may speculate as to concepts like "Limbo." This speculation does not rise to the level of an infallible pronouncement.
He created a Church with a Prophet or Apostle to receive Revelations from him.
The other concept you speak about is unique to Mormanism, i.e. the idea that God continues to provide revelation to his prophet. Without this concept your entire religion would fall on its face since it is based on subsequent revelation given to a guy named Smith.
Most Christians, including Catholics, believe that God's revelation is complete. Catholics believe it is composed of Scripture and the oral teachings of the Apostles(sacred tradition). Once the last Apostle,John, died the body of revelation was closed.
I see no reason to believe that an angel named Moroni decided to give additional information to John Smith a thousand plus years after the death of Christ. I believe South Park said it best,(humming) 'dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb."